I guess I am in favor of the current arrangements, at least for now. The power
of inertia, maybe. I understand that we may have to revisit this issue, but
since we have the change in statutes/bylaws coming up at the general membership
meeting, we may want to consider general input from the membership on issues
such as this, the experience of the Summer School, FOIS, etc. Also, if we
change the procedure, we will have to modify the bylaws at least, I think. (01)
It seems that we have had an influx of new memberships this week, perhaps due
to the Summer School? I do know that some folks are pretty anxious about
joining in order to be able to attend the Summer School, having received some
email myself. (02)
Thanks,
Leo (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: iaoa-education-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:iaoa-education-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Yim
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 12:32 PM
To: IAOA Executive Council
Cc: Nicola Guarino; IAOA Education Committee
Subject: Re: [iaoa-education] [iaoa-council] decisions + 1 question (04)
I am of the opinion that the current procedure & time allowances are
fine. Flexibility to speed up the procedure, as needed (which we had
exercised before) has worked well too; and we can continue to so that
on a need-to basis. (05)
Therefore, I do not suggest we change anything (to the statute, bylaw
or practice)! (06)
If we do need a faster process in this particular situation, someone
can just propose, and if there is no objection, we'll adopt that "fast
track process" *for this particular situation*. (07)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (08)
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Laure Vieu <vieu@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> 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).
>
> 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.
>
> please give your opinion
>
> if such a change is decided, we should remember that we perhaps need to
> change the draft bylaws accordingly.
>
> Laure
>
>
> 9. Admission of Members
>
> 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.
>
>
> 11. Expulsion
>
> 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. (09)
> 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. (010)
_____________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/iaoa-education/
Committee File-share: http://iaoa.cim3.net/file/work/Committee/Education/
Committee Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?IaoaEducation
Activities Blog: http://iaoa-activities.blogspot.com/ ...(coming!)
To join: please email committee chair or to: info @ iaoa.org
IAOA website: 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)
|