Constitution and By-laws changes
- Thread starter TriMax
- Start date
Fishboy42
Premium Member
There is such a small pool upon which to draw for the BOD; this round of revisions makes it even smaller; my concern would be finding enough people to operate the club who fit the description (as it is a concern already, this may only make the problem worse). I guess ETRC could solicit local middle schools...
EvilMel
is a serious goby fanatic
Here's the thing. I think that we should remove the commercial members versus regular members distinction altogether. That clause was originally written to block the actions of a store owner who the club felt was trying to use the club to promote his business.
That's not an issue anymore.
I've been saying this for more years than most of the current people in the club have been around AND before I was affiliated with the Coral Reef at all. CR people are very supportive of AM people and vice versa. Neither of the store's personnel or owners use the club to promote their businesses.
Otherwise neither me nor Matt (two of the founding members of this club and two people who have never promoted their business within the club) are excluded from serving on the board? It also excludes Trent from AM, who is also a great guy.
Incidentally...Matt was president while he had his business (before CR) and he was great. He never promoted SA within the club.
Also, as Matt said...with a small pool of people who even want to be on the board, excluding some of its active members seems ridiculous. Removing that clause would make the bylaws simpler too...win win.
That's not an issue anymore.
I've been saying this for more years than most of the current people in the club have been around AND before I was affiliated with the Coral Reef at all. CR people are very supportive of AM people and vice versa. Neither of the store's personnel or owners use the club to promote their businesses.
Otherwise neither me nor Matt (two of the founding members of this club and two people who have never promoted their business within the club) are excluded from serving on the board? It also excludes Trent from AM, who is also a great guy.
Incidentally...Matt was president while he had his business (before CR) and he was great. He never promoted SA within the club.
Also, as Matt said...with a small pool of people who even want to be on the board, excluding some of its active members seems ridiculous. Removing that clause would make the bylaws simpler too...win win.
macclellan
New member
I thought we decided at Dana's that 15-18 could vote if they were full members as opposed to student members? I don't recall hearing that they could also be on the BOD. That seems unwise to me too.
Matt - The BOD pool is all regular members. The only revision I see that restricts who can be on the BOD is the commercial clause which basically eliminates LFS owners, of which there are, what 4 in the ETRC area, none of whom are particularly active and most of whom aren't members? I don't see how the pool is any smaller in practice, and there's every reason in principle to keep financial interests out of our politics.
Matt - The BOD pool is all regular members. The only revision I see that restricts who can be on the BOD is the commercial clause which basically eliminates LFS owners, of which there are, what 4 in the ETRC area, none of whom are particularly active and most of whom aren't members? I don't see how the pool is any smaller in practice, and there's every reason in principle to keep financial interests out of our politics.
macclellan
New member
You are "holding ownership of a business which has a financial interest in any phase of the Aquarium or Tropical Fish sales"?
I thought you just worked at CR.
I thought you just worked at CR.
cee
New member
" Frag swap sponsors are not considered Commercial members unless they are able to attend meetings, other functions and otherwise participate in club business and activities on a regular basis." I don't like this sentence. The implication is that commercial members must be able to attend meetings or participate in club activities on a regular basis. So, a business can become a sponsor and if they make the required contribution in cash or merchandise they are excluded from becoming a commercial member by virtue of this sentence? Why? This statement and the ones above discourage people from becoming commercial members IMO.
I tend to agree with Mel, remove the distinction altogether. Leave the sentence in about soliciting business at club meetings but leave it at that. I'm sure at this month's meeting there will be no solicitation going on but I'm also convinced they won't turn business away if people are interested in purchasing. Why should they? They are going out of their way to sponsor the meeting and provide food and refreshments for attendees as well as a location to hold the meeting. I think this is a very slippery slope that could have devistating consequences.
Why not just have commercial "sponsors" as opposed to "members". I believe this resolves all the issues presented so far, gives businesses an opportunity to contribute to the club and receive some benefits and, for those local businesses, allows their members to hold office and be fully-empowered members.
I tend to agree with Mel, remove the distinction altogether. Leave the sentence in about soliciting business at club meetings but leave it at that. I'm sure at this month's meeting there will be no solicitation going on but I'm also convinced they won't turn business away if people are interested in purchasing. Why should they? They are going out of their way to sponsor the meeting and provide food and refreshments for attendees as well as a location to hold the meeting. I think this is a very slippery slope that could have devistating consequences.
Why not just have commercial "sponsors" as opposed to "members". I believe this resolves all the issues presented so far, gives businesses an opportunity to contribute to the club and receive some benefits and, for those local businesses, allows their members to hold office and be fully-empowered members.
EvilMel
is a serious goby fanatic
Fishboy42
Premium Member
It's a very small pool simply because it's a small club. I agree with the idea in principle too, but to be clear, all SA/CR employees would be disqualified from BOD membership. That's just us being honest with the way we run our business. I can't speak for Trent, as I don't know if as manager he holds an ownership/equity interest in AM. But the bylaws would make this ETRC's business if any of these people did want to serve on the BOD (not suggesting that any would; all hypotheticals here).
It's not a bad thing; if we are all commercial members, that doesn't hinder our ability to help the club and make suggestions to the BOD. Our interests and the interests of the club are aligned, as success for one means success for both (just as all SA/CR employees have similar interests in the success of their business
). It is the same with the local retailers; the strength of the hobby and thus our market comes from all of us doing a good job.
Not trying to stir trouble -- just want the club to do well. I really enjoyed the club early-on when it was more active (nothing against the current leadership; all is being done with limited time resources of the group).
It's not a bad thing; if we are all commercial members, that doesn't hinder our ability to help the club and make suggestions to the BOD. Our interests and the interests of the club are aligned, as success for one means success for both (just as all SA/CR employees have similar interests in the success of their business
). It is the same with the local retailers; the strength of the hobby and thus our market comes from all of us doing a good job. Not trying to stir trouble -- just want the club to do well. I really enjoyed the club early-on when it was more active (nothing against the current leadership; all is being done with limited time resources of the group).
trbike24
New member
I don't normally get in these types of discussions, but I don't want anybody to be mislead. I don't actually own any percentage of Aquatic Marine. It is my dad's store. Maybe one day I will be included in Mel and Matthew's category. There is respect that I need before owning a business that I don't have yet, and that I have to earn.
Last edited:
macclellan
New member
Matt, I agree with your perspective and wasn't questioning your intentions or anything like that (if the whole world were filled with Matts, we wouldn't need by-laws 
).
I didn't write the document, but I imagine profit sharing and the like wasn't taken into account.
Perhaps Dave is right that all is needed is the bit against soliciting business. The proposed "conflict of interest"-type language is stronger than this.
Either way, hopefully it gets resolved amicably at the meeting.
).I didn't write the document, but I imagine profit sharing and the like wasn't taken into account.
Perhaps Dave is right that all is needed is the bit against soliciting business. The proposed "conflict of interest"-type language is stronger than this.
Either way, hopefully it gets resolved amicably at the meeting.
EvilMel
is a serious goby fanatic
I did.
I explained that it was written for one store owner in particular and have regretted that part of the bylaws ever since. Few have taken the bylaws seriously from day one...so no one gave a crud about changing them. BUT if you're going to change them...just remove the stinking distinction about commercial members versus regular members and right a wrong. Please.
knoxtnreef
New member
I'm fine with 15 and the like voting, but I'd say 18 at least to hold office...
planejane
New member
The intent of changing the commercial membership clause was because we thought the way it is written could be interpreted to exclude employees of LFS as regular members.
I think the better solution would be as Dave suggested.
Trent, you are doing a great job with Aquatic Marine and well on your way to the "Matt/Mel" category!
I think the better solution would be as Dave suggested.
Trent, you are doing a great job with Aquatic Marine and well on your way to the "Matt/Mel" category!
digidana
Member
not being excluded from being on the board of directors does not meet that a 15 year old would be elected. first, they have to be nominated, and then win the election. we were just trying to simplify things. matt wanted to be a full member...to be able to pay the full fees and vote. i think he's shown up at enough meetings, and shown enough support for the club that he deserves that right. his own transportation or not, he's shown up at more meetings than most.
we were also just trying to clarify what was already written regarding commercial vs. regular members. it was very confusing....and now i'm even more confused. :hmm1:
we were also just trying to clarify what was already written regarding commercial vs. regular members. it was very confusing....and now i'm even more confused. :hmm1:
Similar threads
