The drama with the radio club continues, though things still are continuing. There's a new constitition that will be introduced and probably voted on next Monday night. The new constitution is thorough to say the least; it reads like Supreme Court brief. A copy was included with the club newsletter, and I had reviewed it earlier.
I have a couple of issues with the new constitution and its adoption (you probably expected this, didn't you?).
FAMILY MEMBERSHIP. Of the five pages of the proposed club constitution, I think the omission of family memberships is an error. As proposed, if there are two licensed hams in the family, then to be full club members, both need to pay dues. In my family's case, there are three of us (a fourth in the making). Is it worth $60 for my full family to be members? No.
You may think this issue is a big deal to me because of the multiple licensees in my house and my brother's house (he, his wife and two kids have tickets, though their licensed daughter is no longer under their roof). Having a Brooks voting block to rule the club isn't on our agenda: Keeping the club affordable, and creating a welcoming atmosphere is.
If our family had to chip in $60 a year dues for our three hams, I can attest that there wouldn't be three KARS members in our family. Having family membership automatically extended to every licensed ham in the family will cost the club nothing. The benefit is that everyone feels welcomed to participate.
And this is what's perplexing: Why draft a constitution that excludes family members? The original debate focused on having a quorum. Hell, when did we ever need a quorum to decide something? Yeah, its in the bylaws, but let's face it — this is a radio club, not a Roberts Rules of Order Appreciation Society. No one's gone to jail because a ham radio club conducted business without a quorum.
The proposed constitution fixes the entire quorum “problem” by deleting the phrase and using the phrase “2/3 of full members present” at a meeting. Adopting this phrase eliminates the quorum “problem” that was preceived in the existing club constitution.
With the quorum conundrum effective dealt with, what is the benefit of eliminating family memberships? History Lesson: The purpose for family membership was to be as welcoming as possible to hams who had a spouse or child with a ham ticket. Wait, doesn't this family member thing only apply to Jim and his brother? Isn't the only reason I'm jabbering about this due to the fact my brother and I have our own voting block? There's no one else that having family membership would benefit, is there?
Hmmm … Let's check the FCC database, shall we? In a search of Nelson County zip codes we find:
KB3BCC MOLYNEAUX, CHARLES Y
KB3BDG MOLYNEAUX, JOAN M
(Husband & wife)
KE4ECV BROOKS, WANDA N
KI4JGU Brooks, Kyle B
N4SQA Brooks, Benjamin J
(Husband, wife and son)
WD4JOG HATTON, GILBERT M\
WD4NEY HATTON, SANDRA L
(Husband & wife)
AE4NU Kruer, Thomas G
KT4GB Kruer, Mary J
(Husband & wife)
KB4YPB BASHAM, BARBARA J
N4NMC BASHAM, JAMES E
(Husband & wife)
KC4CTB BROOKS, TAMMY S
KI4FNT Brooks, Mary C
KY4Z Brooks Jr, James E
(Husband, wife & daughter)
KI4FZS King, Steve R
KI4HSA King, Elias
(Father & son)
KG4CNW NEWTON, DARREN D
KG4STH Newton, Crystal L
(Husband & wife)
Let me state again that the months of debate over “is a family member a “real” member” was solely because of the quorum issue and the anticipated problem of not having enough members show up to amend the club constitution. If that issue is solved with the new constitution, why not remain a multiple-licensees-in-the-family-friendly club? The market is there.
Our family members — despite whatever reason there may be to exclude them — support the club in both direct and indirect ways. By making our club inclusion to family members, the entire organization benefits.
OTHER CONCERNS. None of the remaining questions about the constitution are huge, but I'll tackle them one at a time.
1. 501(c)(3) LANGUAGE. The proposed constitution is written as though KARS already has non-profit status. The club has not voted to seek non-profit status, so I think inclusion of those passages prior to attaining that status is a little premature. With the club constitution substantially easier to amend, changing the constitution to add that language won't be a future problem. The problem the club faces — and Joe Kendall can confirm this — is the cost of becoming a non-profit organization. Incorporation is easy and relatively inexpensive. But non-profit status will cost the club $750 or more — a price that's more than half of what the club has in its bank account. The club should study the cost vs. benefit of non-profit status. Because the non-profit language includes the method the club will use to dispose of property (Article XI: Dissolution) among other limitations, my recommendation is to withdraw that language until such time the club attains non-profit status.
2. OFFICERS. Article III lists club officers as president, vice president, secretary and treasurer. But Article IV includes an officer that doesn't appear in Article III – Emergency Coordinator. There is no EC office in the club or constitution. The ARES EC is an ARRL appointment and not an elected officer unless the club constitution creates a new office. I not sure I see the need for a club EC when the county ARES EC is a club member.
3. MEETINGS. Article V: Meetings includes wording that a 2/3 majority vote is required to decide a meeting time and place. This part eliminates the flexibility the officers have for making changes in meeting place when necessary. I'm not sure this article will benefit the membership if the meeting place has to change between meetings.
4. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION. In seveal sections of the constitution, it specifies that publication in the club newsletter constitutes written notification. This is fine in most cases, but suppose there's no newsletter? Written notification should be necessary for elections, constitutional issues and other important meetings. For some issues — like meeting notification — I think the newsletter requirement could be burdensome. My suggestion is to include the phrase (“… or publication on the club web site.”).
5. WE AREN'T FOLLOWING THE RULES? The club has expended a great deal of energy debating legal issues over the club constitution, i.e., “Is a family member a real member?”, quorums, etc. We have an expanded and more detailed constitution to consider at the next meeting. But consider the irony: We'll be voting on a more comprehensive plan, but apparently ignoring the existing one in the process.
Our current constitution states under Article VII: Amendments:
This constitution or By-Laws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the total membership. Proposals for amendments shall be submitted in writing at a regular meeting and shall be voted on at the next following regular meeting, provided all members have been noticed by mail of the intent to amend the constitution and/or By-Laws at said meeting. Robert's Rules shall govern proceedings.
Now per the May newsletter, only a simple majority will be required to approve the new constitution. Admittedly I'm a cranky sonuvabitch, but with all the legal wrangling about a constitution, why can't the club follow its own constitution when its time to amend or replace the one it has? Why not follow the constitution's provisions as outlined above?
There is nothing vague about the current constitution on the topic of membership. Dues are assessed per family, and full membership is open to every licensee in that family. Let's not use the “vague” argument as an excuse to circumvent the rules that some don't agree with. Follow the rules to change what you don't like. We've never ever tried to change the constitution by the prescribed method; many have assumed it to be impossible, assigning problems to the process before anything was proposed or attempted.
This isn't to suggested the proposed constitution is good or bad. If it is important to have a constitution at all, it should be equally as important to try to follow the existing one.
Soapbox mode off. Back to regular network programming …