Bylaws Amendments -- Comments

Amendment #1 (Do away w/ 2VC)

Generally speaking, I think this is a good amendment, as the duties of the 2VC really could be taken on by the rest of the AMC. A couple of items, though:

--I think better phrasing in IV(2) re: what happens when the VC is absent would be "In the absence or inability to serve of both the Chairman and Vice Chairman, their duties will be assumed by the senior-most elected directors of the AMC based on uninterrupted time served on the AMC."

--If this were to pass during this election, then the person who would have just been elected to the position would immediately be out of office, as the position will be simultaneously done away with. Perhaps a "date effective" (say, July 1, 2015 -- the beginning of the *subsequent* term) should be added to this?

---

Amendment #2 (Change appointees to be non-voting; remove Past Past Chair & keep Past Chair for no more than 6 months)

Mixed bag. First of all, this should be split into two separate amendments, as the limitations on Past Chairs and the change of appointee voting rights are totally unrelated to each other.

I agree with the sentiment that only those people elected to the AMC should be the ones to have a vote on AMC motions. Why should these particular AMC appointees get a vote and not such others as the various counsel (Interpretive Counsel, Intellectual Property Counsel, General (?) Counsel)?

And while I would prefer to just outright get rid of both of the past chair positions (they can always be left on the AMC e-list for consultations, etc.; that's an administrative call that the AMC can make whenever it wishes to, IMO), this is a step in the right direction.

---

Amendment #3 (RVC roles)

I understand the point behind this: define the duties of the office just like the other AMC offices have defined roles within the bylaws. I do wonder about a couple of items in here, though:


Are proxies on the Board of Directors permitted per NYS NFP law? (I've not gone and looked for myself yet. It's something which will need to get answered at some point.)


Also, is removal of the Asst. RVC by the majority of the AMC permitted per NYS NFP law? It would seem that this runs afoul of the same issue as we currently have with removal of RVCs. (The way this is otherwise written, surely the RVC can remove his own assistant, but I don't see how the AMC could do so.)

---

Amendment #4 (Add a LocSec Representative to AMC's appointees)

This one I don't like:
--Why do LocSecs, specifically, require a special representative on the AMC, any moreso than the rest of the membership?
--Isn't this just an extra, and more cumbersome, layer of bureaucracy than the RVCs? RVCs communicate with about a dozen LocSecs currently, at least in theory, to represent the chapters in their region on the AMC. This position would have 1 person communicating with over 130 LocSecs to be able to represent them on the AMC, when they're already represented by their respective RVCs.
--The mechanism for appointing the LocSec Representative is extremely clunky.

I think this one could benefit from a rewrite to improve the clarity before the membership should be voting on it. (Granted, by improving the clarity and not changing the underlying amendment, I still would want the membership to vote this one down.)

---

Amendment #5 (Reduce # of RVCs down to 3-5)

This one I very much don't like. And while it could benefit from slightly improved phrasing, it's clear enough to be put on the ballot, I think. (Well, once the date effective is also dealt with, as with Amendment #1.)

Why dislike this one? Well, doing the math with 3 RVCs, we get the "large" region with about 12 groups, then the "medium" region with over 20 groups, and finally the "small" region with over 90 groups. Really? *90* groups can be adequately represented by one RVC? And effective if Amendment #3 were to pass also? Even if you break the "small" region into 3 regions of 30 each (for ease here), that's still far too many for one RVC to handle.

Nevermind the fact that the various groups within any one region will be so far-flung that it's unlikely that the vast majority of members within the region will have the opportunity to even meet their RVC.