Constitutional Debates ? or Debauchery ???

#1
Written without prejuduce;

To: The Board of Directors of the LPWA

From: Chris Kozak, Sustaining Member LPWA

re; unapproved voting criteria/eligibility issue

As you know I have spoken out to a number of you about the Board of Directors pre-emptively implementing a clause from the proposed (and yet to be voted by the membership body upon) new Constitution regarding that - "new" members be at least paid up and in good standing 30 days prior to the Annual "Spring" General Meeting (AGM) to be eligable to vote at the AGM meeting.

Frankly speaking this directive seems to me to be entirely unparlimentary and somewhat high-handed in appearance as the new constitution has not been voted upon yet. It would seem to me that any initiative that is part of a new constitution cannot be immplemented until that same new constitution has been voted upon and passed by the membership body. And that this propossed directive be publicly retracted as a criteria and/or eligibility for members to vote upon, until the membership body has acutally voted upon the "new constitution".

It has been suggessted to me that my concern with the "no members may vote who are not paid up and in good standing at least 30 days prior to the AGM" issue will be addressed at the meeting and I should not concern myself with it. However this is glossing over the fact that a "rule" that was not a "rule" in the past is being immplemented now without the membership body being consulted and agreeing.

It would seem that in the spirit of embarking on a New Constitution, that the Board of Directors would act constitutionally and not unilaterally immplement an unapproved motion prior to the memberships majority approval.

Chris Kozak
A concerned Sustaining Member
 

Buddy Boy

Well-Known Member
#2
Hello OCLP:

I support your position and I have contacted the BOD regarding your concerns suggesting that we continue our business at this year's AGM as we have in the past until the new Constitution (including this provision) is passed by the membership.

The BOD will be meeting again before the AGM and hopefully they will give my comments and suggestion due consideration. However I do not feel comfortable in disclosing all of my comments on this public forum.

J. Katchin, D.V.M.
 
#2
Thanks BuddyBoy ! I was starting to wonder if I was the only member that found that requirement out of order ? I know that "some" will say I'm just raising a fuss because of what happened last year and that I am a "sore loser" ? I will state right now that that is not the case ! I have shown an interest in the "new" Constitution from the very begining and as a long time member of the LPWA am very concerned with such an important creedo that will govern how we will function for the next 50 years.

So I propose that that particular itiem [30 day prior]be stricken from the Constitution.

I see also that the Secretary is "now" to be charged with keeping the members contact information private ? I propose that there be two(2) lists ; one for those that do not wish to be contacted by fellow members regarding issues pertaining to the LPWA or the LPWMU and an open list of those members that would like to be contacted for same such purpose.

I propose that any member elected to the Board of Directors as a "Director" can only hold office for three(3) terms and the same rule apply to the Excutive Officers [President/Chairperson,Vice-President/Vice-Chairperson, Secretary aka Recording-Secretary and Treasurer] as to only holding one or any combination of those positions to a maximum of three(3) terms.

This will allow a member who so wishes to contribute 12 years of their life in service to the LPWA and to it's members and to the public at large.

I propose that any Director/Excutive Officer who has fullfilled 12 years of service be given an Honorary Sustaining Membership with all rights and privileges for a five year period upon retiring from office.

Well that should be a good start. Maybe more to follow ?

Chris Kozak
Sustaining member
 

Buddy Boy

Well-Known Member
#2
Hello OCLP:

I support you regarding your opposition to "implementing a clause from the proposed (and yet to be voted by the membership body upon) new Constitution" but I do support the clause in principle for two reasons:

1) I do not think that it is fair to the BOD that a bunch of "late payers" (membership now ends in September of the previous year) want to pay for their membership just before the AGM starts. There is no way that I would want to deal with that just before the start of the meeting.

2) This clause will also prevent a bunch of guys joining at the last minute to be able to vote on an issue.

Why would anyone wait from September to the following April to pay for their membership.

One could reasonably argue that anyone not paid up by December 31 of that year has to reapply for membership status.

As for new members ... well when I first joined I watched and listened for the first few years and only voted on issues of general interest.

Furthermore I think that the membership should run from January 01 to December 31 of each year with payment before March 01 otherwise you do not get to vote at the AGM.

Some of your other suggestions may have merit but sometimes no else wants to run for a position ... then what?

Jerome
 
#2
Hi BB !

The BoD is wanting to have memberships run from Sept. to Sept., why I do not know ? Maybe because a lot of us buy our Sustaining Memberships at the begining of the season ? It does make more sense to have it run from Jan. 1st to Dec. 31st and allow a state of grace for the months of Jan. and Feb. seeing as everyone is trying to get over the cost of Christmas.

I do not think it wise to turn down a new member no matter what time of year ! If someone is interested enough to want to join by putting down their money and spend the time and trouble to attend the Meeting,then they should have the right to vote !
 
#2
Speaking of "running" and "voting" ?

To compliment my already stated proposals;
That ALL positions of the BoD should be up for election so as to start off our new Constitution on a fair and even note ?

Chris Kozak
Sustaining Member
 
#2
I see in Article II(2)-Ojectives reference to promoting all aspects of waterfowl hunting with particular emphasis on recruiting new and apprentice hunters.

Which is all well and good but I don't see any commitment to handicapped/physicaly challenged hunters ?

I know we have one blind dedicated to this issue but I think more blinds could be opened up and trails groomed to allow access by wheelchair. Maybe a dock blind could be built out into "B" Zone ? I see that Yamaha make a two seater called a Rhino [in cammo !] that could be used to taxi out hunters with mobility issues. If they would donate such an item it would cost the Association nothing and Yamaha would recieve excellent press for being a good coporate citizen.

Chris Kozak
Sustaining Member
 
#2
OCLP,
are you running for any positions or are you currently part of the executive? I enjoy the different perspectives and differences that you have to offer the community that I love. Same goes to you Buddy Boy and sometimes Singlemalt. The three of you seem more willing to openly discuss the issues on here (where average user, like me, can get a better understanding) that effect all of the unit users. I really do appreciate these contributions.
 
#2
DDG ! Thanks for taking interest and the kind words. At present I do not sit on the Board of Directors although it was(is ?)my plan to offer up my services some day but then again I'm probably commiting political suicide by speaking my mind here ? LoL!

I believe in our Association and for what it stands for. I also believe in the men who help run it and the scarifices they make to maintain public waterfowling not only for the Members but to the general public as well.

I also believe in democracey and the right of free speech.I note that quite a few people have been reading this thread but few have taken the opportunity to express themselves. This "new" Constitution is an extremely important document that will dictate how "WE" will conduct ourselves and our bussiness at hand. It is easier to make sure it is done near to perfection the first time round then to have to fix things later.We're human and thus make mistakes but hopefully we learn from them and discuss/debate them and become all the better for it.

Chris
 
#2
Well, if the board meets once (maybe twice- again at camo day sort of) a year publicly (that I can think of) and wants to limit what people can talk about in that one meeting about a PUBLIC RESOURCE, then I guess this site is going to be even more important for the peons that actually use the marsh...
 

Buddy Boy

Well-Known Member
#2
Hello DDG,

Thank you for your kind comment about me.

I believe that we all have something to contribute to the sport of waterfowling and to the WMU at Long Point. It may be our experience, ideas, knowledge, money, time or wisdom but all of it can help in whatever amount that is available from each of us.

The trick is to get everyone "on board" knowing that they and their contributions (in whatever form) are appreciated.

We may always have differences in opinions but we should always have the same goal ... to improve waterfowling opportunities and the WMU at Long Point.

See you at the meeting.

Jerome
 
Top