Dear all, (01)
below is what the statute says. we both have an admission procedure
(that we may implemnt as we wish though), and an expulsion procedure.
so in any case, even after approval, and without any time frame, we can
expell a member (for good reasons). (02)
my suggestion therefore is that, if you all agree, to change the current
approval procedure reducing the 5 days I give to the EC to raise any
objection to 2 working days.
and this not just now, but all the time. (03)
please give your opinion (04)
if such a change is decided, we should remember that we perhaps need to
change the draft bylaws accordingly. (05)
Laure (06)
9. Admission of Members (07)
In order to join the Association, interested parties are required to
fill out a membership form and pay the membership fee. Admission
requests must be approved by the Executive Council. If an applicant is
refused admission, the Executive Council must communicate its reasons in
writing, and the membership fee is to be returned. If an applicant is
denied admission, he or she may appeal the decision to the Assembly.
People applying to become members in connection with their participation
to an initiative (such as a conference or a course) organized by the
Association are entitled to participate in such initiative pending the
confirmation of their admission at the next meeting of the Executive
Council. (08)
11. Expulsion (09)
Members can be removed from the Association when they have intentionally
violated the Statute or the Association Rules or other resolutions
approved by the Assembly; when they carry out or support activities
contrary to the purposes of the Association;
or when their behaviour jeopardizes the good name of the Association.
The Executive Council, after having asked the concerned Member to
justify his or her behaviour, can decide expulsion with the vote of two
thirds of its members. Expelled members may appeal to the Assembly; in
such case, their rights and duties are however suspended until the
Assembly’s decision. (010)
Le 16/03/12 16:57, John Bateman a écrit :
> Hi Nicola,
>
> I see the problem/issue....
>
> Am 16.03.2012 16:02, schrieb Nicola Guarino:
>> for instance, a group of people (possibly not interested at all in
>> the association) may promote a mass membership campaign just to
>> conquer the power.
>
> but how can this be detected by our approval procedure
> (and within the time frame currently allowed)? It
> would seem to me that a better solution would be to *allow*
> approval to be checked (and rejected) if there are grounds (which would
> need to be raised explicitly) rather than having a default
> approval procedure that actually then does little because
> it becomes a formality for 99% (I presume so far 100%)
> of actual cases. I think the association must retain
> the right to decline membership, but the issue is
> more how that is managed. At present it seems to be
> just overhead for little reward. How about a
> retroactive rejection clause: "membership may be
> rejected by a majority vote of the EC up to a
> month after membership on full refund of paid
> dues." Membership is thus automatic, but provisional
> for a month.... [I'm not sure at this stage then which
> option ends up bringing the most overhead...]
>
>>
>> and do you all DO read those messages anyway??
>
> thank those ontological gods above us
> for the 5th amendment to the US constitution....
>
> :-)
>
> John.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To Post: mailto:iaoa-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-council/
> List Info: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-council/
> http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/council/
> Community Portal: http://iaoa.org
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:iaoa-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-council/
List Info: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/iaoa-council/
http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/council/
Community Portal: http://iaoa.org (012)
|