posted 07-01-2006 04:35 PM            

RRoO Newly Revised 10th Edition (the default) pages 408-415 discusses this topic in depth.

Pg 408 Line 31- Pg 409 Line 2:

quote:

---

“It is fundamental principal of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a legal meeting, although it should be noted that the member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws.

---

RRoO Pg 409 Line 2 – Line 4 states the possible provisions:

quote:

---

Such possible exceptions include: (a) voting by postal or electronic mail, or facsimile transmission (fax), and (b) proxy voting.

---

posted 07-01-2006 04:51 PM            

Those words could have been penned by Tailgunner Joe himself. Then, just to be sure, toss in a flag burning analogy.

When you use that analogy, it seems obvious that the officers and board picture themselves as the protectors while those who disagree with them on this issue are standing at their door with Old Glory in one hand and a zippo in the other and all just before independance day.

Very dramatic, but it's uncalled for and unnecessary. If the BOD wants to fight a battle to prevent George Mashke from getting copies of their minutes then they should wait until he asks for them and then go to war with him rather than draw a line in the sand barring a respected member a simple request.

If J.B.s interpretation of the bylaws is on point then the secretary can and should immediatly release the requested minutes.

From your comments,it appears that the decision to release the minutes is going to be left for the next administration which means that you have no intention of trying to grant his request before his campaign for office is over.

Will you at least state that you believe that any dues paying member should be granted access to minutes of BOD meetings?

posted 07-01-2006 06:38 PM            

I guess I missed the provision in the APA constitution that does provide for absentee voting on amendments.:

quote:

---

Article XI
Amendments
A - This Constitution may be amended by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of all Voting Members, as designated:
1 - present and voting at any meeting of the General Membership, or
2 - by absentee mail ballot.
B - No amendment or replacement shall be voted upon unless a copy of the proposed amendment or revision has been mailed or otherwise provided to all Voting Members at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting at which the amendment is to be voted upon or the deadline set in the mail ballot.
C - Amendments may be proposed by any member to the Board of Directors and shall be submitted to the General Membership either on order by the Board of Directors or by petition signed by five (5) members in good standing of the American Polygraph Association.
D - Amendments shall take effect immediately upon approval unless otherwise stated in the amendment.

---

posted 07-01-2006 06:48 PM            

I would like to step in at this point in the debate to make two quick points. First, the APA General Counsel has been very attentive to this request, and in my view he has been characteristically evenhanded. He, like TV and Skip, are staying within the rules as they interpret them, and until the rules are changed, they are doing what they are supposed to do. I have made it clear in personal communications that I am not asking for special treatment, and that this problem is not just about my candidacy but about the rights of all APA members. It is simply one data point in a transparency issue, and that it appears the responsible parties are trying to resolve it according to the rules. I have differences with the leadership, to be certain, but I have no quarrel with those who obey the rules even when it would be easier to overlook them.

This ties in with my second point, to remind everyone that this contest between TV and me is not personal, and that subterfuge has not been implied in my comments about the Board minutes. Let me repeat a portion of my earlier post, so that there is no misunderstanding about what I said:

"No one can get the Board minutes without a majority vote of the Board at one of their regularly scheduled meetings. To know what happened at the Board meeting, regular members need the permission from the Board on an individual basis, possibly granted twice a year at their meetings. Let's be clear that I am not suggesting any impropriety on the part of anyone."

Suggestions from my loyal opposition that I have cast aspersions on their integrity is simply wrong, a distraction, and I would ask that the defensiveness be put aside. I would also ask that we remember that this is supposed to be a contest of ideas, ability, and for the future direction of an Association we all love. Making it personal diminishes us all.

posted 07-11-2006 07:27 AM            

Thanks,

Don

posted 07-22-2006 12:38 AM            

One thing to note is that TV O'Malley has done a tireless and sometimes thankless lot of work for the polygraph profession for many more years than I've been around, and for that we owe him a debt of supreme gratitude and thanks. I know that we can continue to depend upon him as an expert resource on EPPA and other subjects. I'm sure this election was not easy for anyone.

For now, suffice it to say this was a very interesting conference, and it was great to meet some of the people whose names I've seen on this forum.

Now, its time to look forward, and homeward. I've no grass to mow, but lots of dirt to move and noxious weeds to kill.

So, keep the shiny side up and the rubber side down and travel safely.

*more later*

------------------
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room."
--(Dr. Strangelove, 1964)