[Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

Sun Nov 15 06:32:11 PST 2009

I agree with keeping the method of division, etc. out of bylaws and in the
MHB.
Doc

  _____  

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Joseph Sare
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 7:57 AM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

Ahh, okay.  Well, instead of splitting regions, how about moving them to
another nearby region that is smaller.  

Let's use my own region for example.  Region 1 has over what would be
considered the maximum number of members and/or chapters.  Region 13 (which
borders with Ohio and Indiana) has 73 members and 4 chapters.  Why not just
move one of the states to R13?   If that's still too many for R1, do the
same thing with another smaller bordering region, on one of the other
bordering sides.  

The way to do this without upsetting the applecart?  R1 would contact me (as
R13RC) and the COs of Indiana and Ohio.  Everyone could decide which would
be the best.  It could be an election of each state's COs, and the highest
state would move out of that region.  For example: Indiana has an election,
and 75% of all COs decided to stay in R1, but 58% of all Ohio COs voted to
move to R13, so Indiana would stay and Ohio would move to R13.  

Or you could just leave the decision entirely up to the R1RC, however they
want to decide how to divide the region to make it smaller.  

Another thing we're not taking into consideration.  What if a RC lives in a
state that moves to another region?  Say the R1RC lives in Ohio, and the COs
all vote to move to R13, or Ohio becomes it's own region (say a Region 21).
Are they grandfathered for the rest of their term, and allowed to continue
as R1RC until re-election?  

I don't know though.  Maybe this amount of detail and level of
sophistication should be placed in the MHB to keep the bylaws as simple as
possible..

-Joe

Bdr. Joseph Sare, SFMC - K8FON
Regional Coordinator - STARFLEET Region 13
www.region13.org 
joseph.sare at gmail.com 
Skype: k8fon1
(248) 686-2390

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Conard
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 7:35 PM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

Joe,
I concur. My concern is that the AB will get too large to work effectively.
Splitting regions and giving each region a seat on the AB risks making it
too unwieldy a body. I'd like to see a smaller, more responsive board but I
see no way to do it without upsetting the apple cart. This is a difficult
issue.

Doc

  _____  

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Joseph Sare
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:57 PM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

Doc,

I really have no personal issues about the size of the AB, or our ability to
work as a group.  I wouldn't suggest adding too many additional AB members
though.  There are some times where there can be a lot of different
discussions, or we can be slow on a particular topic, so that's the main
reason why I say this.  If you add too many more AB members, I think it'll
just add to these two things.  

Joe

Bdr. Joseph Sare, SFMC - K8FON
Regional Coordinator - STARFLEET Region 13
www.region13.org 
joseph.sare at gmail.com 
Skype: k8fon1
(248) 686-2390

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Blaser
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 10:52 AM
To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: Re: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

That's a question that would be best answered by them.

I've asked the question of the EC, and it'll take some time to get a
response back, but for an AB response, you may want to ask Joe, Jack,
Chrissy and Reed that question.

Dave
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Michael Conard <mconard at itol.com> wrote:
Dave, 

What is the current feeling among leadership and the AB in general about its
size and ability to work as a group? I think we need to consider their
experience in the current environment as we discuss this.

Doc
  _____  

From: bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org [mailto:bylaws-l-bounces at lists.sfi.org]
On Behalf Of Dave Blaser
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 8:05 AM

To: bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
Subject: [Bylaws-l] Fwd: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee

Comments and a suggestion from a member, forwarded with permission.

I've got another 2 messages that I'll be forwarding.

Dave
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Michael Timko <michaelj.timko at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Subject: Thank you and suggestion(s) for the committee
To: Dave Blaser <vcs at sfi.org>
Dave,

I would like to thank the committee for looking into the possibility of
limiting the size an scope of regions in Starfleet.  This is something that
is long overdue in fleet and if left up to the regions themselves (such as
R1) would never get done.

That being said, here is my suggestion.  I know this will displease the SFMC
(to which I am member), but I believe that the position of Brigade OIC
should classified as a regional position (as they represent a subset of
marines) and thus chosen by the Regional Coordinator.  I would also suggest
that a sitting BDE OIC can only be removed by a VOC of the unit OIC's in a
territory.

As it stands now, the Brigade OIC is chosen by COFORCECOM and that person
serves at their pleasure.  You say the wrong thing to the COFORCECOM and
they can oust without even talking to the marines you represent.  This also
effects existing Brigade OIC's as if the COFORCECOM does not like this
person they are free to replace this person with someone they like, but the
marines of the area may dislike.  It's too much power for one person to
wield.

If we take up the points I mentioned, then we would have BDE OIC's who truly
represent the brigades they serve as opposed to people who are only loyal to
the COFORCECOM.

I also have one other suggestion.

I think that maybe Starfleet needs to have one or more correy regions added.

Correy regions have a hard time existed in regions that have always been
defined by physical parameters.  Correy chapter members can be anywhere in
Starfleet, but are precluded from being RC because they do not live in the
physical boundaries of the territory they choose to be part of.  Its also a
question of geography.  You can live in a region, but regions (such as R1)
can cover vast amounts of territory.  More years than not, the R1 summit has
been held in Pigeon Forge, TN which is an 8 hour drive for me as I live on
the Northern most edge of R1.  I think that is entirely too far to be asked
to drive for a regional summit.  A summit driving distance should be no more
than a couple of hours or a few hundred miles.

To that end, here are my suggestions for a correy region(s):
Any correy chapter is welcome to be part, but can remain in their existing
region if they would choose too.
If a chapter chooses to be part of a correy region they would remain in that
region for a period of one year (this prevents switching back and forth and
causing headaches for the Chief of Ops).
Correy chapters would have no city of charter.
Correy chapters would be exclusively online and hold meetings online.
Correy chapters would be allowed to have limited physical gatherings.

Michael Timko

-- 
Dave
dave at blaser.ca

_______________________________________________
Bylaws-l mailing list
Bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
http://lists.sfi.org/listinfo.cgi/bylaws-l-sfi.org

-- 
Dave
dave at blaser.ca
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfi.org/pipermail/bylaws-l-sfi.org/attachments/20091115/92c9c6dc/attachment-0001.htm>