The problems

[rwitte42]

[Alyx]

[tourbi]

[Alyx]

[rwitte42]

[Alyx]

[alshayed]

[Jaz Gordon]

Well, they are proposed changes, so this mailing is their way of discussing it with the membership. Don't like them? Vote no. That's what I did. I understand what you mean, though, that they could have had the proposal discussed before presenting it for vote. And I wish they would have.

There must be some way to get a new copy of the ballot sent to those who haven't received it. I've run into several people who have not received theirs. Have you written board@dragonfest.org and asked what you can do about this? I hope they have some contingency plan for this kind of problem.

Anyway, I do so wish they'd done a line-item vote. There are some good things in there, but way too many things that are scary and wrong. I am in no way saying the current board has any plans or designs to cause problems, but the fact is that every year, we get a new board member, and the way they have worded the proposal, it could be easily taken advantage of by unscrupulous people. In addition, as others have mentioned, we must avoid the appearance of wrongdoing, and the proposal for new bylaws leaves way too many openings for such appearances.

[alshayed]

[moonspirit62]

I received the proposed bylaws in the mail from Dragonfest.org. These bylaws require a vote; therefore, follow the democratic process. Upon review of the proposed bylaws, I found flaws within the document itself. For the normal democratic process, each change, revision, deletion or addition from the current bylaws should have been an amendment to be voted upon separately. The proposed bylaws do not support this process.
I will vote against the proposed bylaws due to the changes within the document, and due to proper democratic procedure not being followed.

Pat LaGuardia

[Jay Bohmer]

I have just read the proposed bylaws. I think the objections already posted here by others cover my opinions completely. I have yet to receive the ballot for the proposed bylaws, thanks mostly to my closing my P.O. Box. I will be voting against the changes as proposed. I agree that a line item vote is needed. I would add that the existing wording should be included for comparison to the proposed change(s).

Jay

[Fredric L. Rice]

Well, one of the real difficulties is that all of the proposals are grouped into a single YES/NO vote -- which means that there's virtually no way anyone who examines the proposals in detail could conceivably vote YES.



I don't like much of this -- but then I also don't like the renting of the white tents and other expenses we don't honestly need to waste money on. Why that's relevent is because the rental of equipment should not be from equipment rental companies that have any family or business connections with any Board, Ops, or controlling individual of DF. Equipment rentals should not be tied to any DF individual who makes decisions on which rental company to use.

So things are missing from the proposals, and all of them are bundled together -- it's a fatal proposal.

[Alyx]

Nominations: Nominations to the Board must be recieved in writing, postmarked, or hand delivered to a Director, no later than the 15th of September for inclucsion in the following annual election. Election ballots shall be mailed to the membership approximately 45 days after the nominations are closed. Each nomination must be signed and dated by the nominee. All nominatios shall include a completed application and be submitted with a cover letter.

(sarcasm ON)
They want an APPLICATION???? with a COVER LETTER???

I just ran for Board, no one gave me an application. Does that mean that I didn't really run???

They change the date for receipt of the nomination letter, but they remove the specific date in which the ballots must be mailed out.

So, it's okay to place expectations on us, but not the Board???

Still voting NO

[Jay Bohmer]

My ballot showed up yesterday. It had the old address. I mailed it back this morning.

[gadfly]

Let's go back to this Pagan Intellectual Snob Society. This may not be a working group, but I have been given to understand that at least 4, if not all 5, members of the current Dragonfest Board are members of this organization. Working group or not, this gives the distinct impression of collusion. The fact that the bylaws as mailed out to the corporate members would eliminate the requirement for a two-year "break" between terms, added to the distinct possibility of collusion, strikes me as a blatant power grab to keep the Festival power in the hands that hold it now, with no chance of objecting or calling for change without risking ostracism or "loss" from the mailing list.