I've been slowly reading and considering the proposed bylaws amendments
as presented in
InterLoc #332, and now I find same in the
Mensa Bulletin #443. Slowly, because that is some boring
reading... not only boring, but one often wonders why the laws were
written as they were in the first place... and at the same time, why
anybody would want to bother changing them, except to make them clear,
which is rarely the intent.
But enough is enough, and after slogging about halfway through, and
deciding that I've wasted enough time, I've promised myself to study
them no more and to post these thoughts to get them off my chest
(thoughts... chest... somehow that doesn't sound right).
- Substitution of the journal for Mensa Bulletin, for
flexibility - I find this rather odd. The only flexibility
I see is that a name change would not then necessitate a change in
the bylaws. Is a name change being considered? And if a name change
was approved, then why not simply amend the bylaws to reflect that
change? The name doesn't matter much to me, but I just might suspect
that a name change is in the works and the Powers That Be want to
avoid a situation like that of the headquarters being moved to Texas
against the rules, after which they kept their fingers crossed while
a proposed change to the rules to permit such a move was was put to
the vote.
- ...we recommend that local groups keep the name of the local
newsletter out of local bylaws, and the reasons are just as valid
at the national level... - Hardly convincing, since these
reasons are not stated! Thus it is impossible for one to judge them,
or to decide whether just as valid means valid or
invalid.
- The substitution of elective for elected and
appointive for appointed - I may be wrong on this,
but my ear agrees with all the dictionaries I've checked both
online and off, which tell me that offices are appointive and
officers are appointed. None of my sources supported the belief that
appointive officer is grammatically correct. (Elective
vs. elected is a different matter. A relatively small number
of sources did allow for use of the term elective officer.
Perhaps the usage of elective is changing, and the usage
of appointive is being dragged along. Or so somebody in
the Committee thought. Or maybe they just thought it sounded
fancier. A few quick websearches also demonstrated that phrases
like elective officer are far less common than those like
elected officer, that phrases like appointive officer
are far less common than those like appointed officer, and
that phrases like appointive officer are far less common than
those like elective officer.)
- Amendment 4 is poorly written. I approve of the outcome but also
suspect that if passed, the passage will be amended again before
long. The reason I approve is that, in general, the Powers That Be do
not request member input or approval; they simply inform us of their
decisions after the fact, and I don't like that. It's a little thing,
but I'm glad to see them amending the bylaws to require notification
even earlier in the process. But I also know that eventually they
will realize that this amendment did not just clarify that the
specific amount being considered need not be in the notice, and
then we'll probably see another amendment. (What it really comes down
to is the terms considered and proposed. Either the
intent is for the two to be used synonymously (in which case, why
change?), or not (in which case, they really are requiring earlier
notification (not just of proposal but of consideration)
(which is out of character (so what are they up to?))))
- And also in re amendment 4... protection against such things
as typographical errors? Are we being overlawyered again?
Couldn't they just be extra special careful when they type that
number? And even if they did type it wrong, why couldn't they
simply say so? Sheesh.
6 Aprilo 2001 modifita, de Ailanto verkita.