On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 14, 2014, at 7:32 PM, Evan Pettrey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On May 14, 2014, at 7:25 PM, Evan Pettrey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> - *Be Flexible - *I can't tell you how many great ideas I've seen >>> killed by our rigorous adherence to bylaws that none of us created and >>> procedure written by somebody none of us has ever met. Bylaws and >>> procedure >>> can be great and exist for a reason but we need to realize that often >>> times >>> we're sucking the soul out of projects that have a promising future >>> simply >>> because the idea wasn't presented correctly, the bylaws don't explicitly >>> state something is allowable, etc. >>> >>> We need to go back to operating like a startup. We're simply not a >>> large enough organization to be held back by things like this. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> As a 501(c)(3), you don't have the luxury of acting like a startup. You >>> have to have "religious adherence to bylaws". If you don't like them, I >>> direct you to article 11 of the bylaws for how to amend them. >>> >>> Actions that are in violation of the bylaws can be legally actionable >>> and nobody wants that. >>> >> >> Then adopt bylaws that provide more freedom. >> >> >> You're the board member who's claiming the by-laws are cramping your >> style. Propose the amendment that you think removes the cramp. >> > > I can't comment on whether or not I've brought this up in the past but > I'll say that you're making assumptions here. > > > I'm not making assumptions. You said we need to be flexible. I said "the > bylaws don't allow for themselves to be ignored", and you said (in a > sentence structure that made it a command) that *I* should adopt bylaws > that provided freedom. I stated that I wasn't the one asserting that the > organization was being cramped by "religious adherence" to those bylaws, > you were, so you would be in the best position to propose an amendment that > provided the freedom you were describing. > > We're getting caught up in semantics here. I was not stating that you or I should do this, I was stating that I felt the *organization *should. A similar minor detail that offers little value to the larger conversation and would detract from the intention of what I was trying to say would be to comment about how you asserted that I used the statement "religious adherence" which I did not - I stated "rigorous adherence." D >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
