From owner-constitution@andromeda.68k.org Tue Oct 14 00:01:33 1997 Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 02:00:06 -0500 From: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org (LSMSAAA Constitution Digest) To: constitution-digest@68k.org Subject: LSMSAAA Constitution Digest V1 #14 Reply-To: constitution@andromeda.68k.org Sender: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org Errors-To: owner-constitution-digest@lsmsaaa.org Precedence: bulk LSMSAAA Constitution Digest Tuesday, October 14 1997 Volume 01 : Number 014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:58:06 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andre' DeHon" Subject: Re: Budgeting Sorry for the late response guys, the last week has been hectic. Dues revisions sound plausible (some places I might still tweak the wording, but I think Steve is planning on incorporating those still). Budget/treasurer: Was there a plan to give president/sect. (or someone) the authority to move the account to a new name? (can one do that with accounts? setup a class of people who can designate changes in signatur authority, but cannot designate themselves....or some such...) I don't see any reporting requirements for expenditures. I think it would be good to have the treasurer summarize account activity regularly (perhaps to be included in the newsletter at least annually?). Perhaps funding request/vetos should also be reported regularly (again, newsletter? ... for those who don't make the general assembly)? Otherwise it sounds plausible. Andre' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:32:49 -0500 From: "Brian Beavers" Subject: Re: Dues revised (and increased) >3.2 Retroactive Rate Increases >Changes in the dues requirements (through Section 9, governing >constitutional amendments) may not be retroactive; anyone who has >paid dues for a given fiscal year before the new rate structure >takes effect will still qualify as having paid dues for that >year. No change in the dues requirements may revoke Lifetime >Membership once someone has qualified. I got swamped a while back during the dues discussion, so I don't know if this issue has already been raised. How would this section affect a person who had, say, paid 3 years of lifetime dues paid but then a dues increase occurs? In this case, if somone has paid three years worth of $15 dollar dues, could that person finish off with 7 years of $15? I would favor the interpretation that would be finishing off with 7 years of $25, and the person not going back to pay the extra $10 per year. Brian - ----------------------------------------------------------------- | Brian Daniel Beavers, a.k.a. beavs -O beavs@linknet.net | | Louisiana Tech University bdb010@math.latech.edu | | LSMSA Class of '96 http://www.LaTech.edu/~bdb010 | - ----------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:37:37 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andre' DeHon" Subject: Re: Dues revised (and increased) > From: "Brian Beavers" > Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 15:32:49 -0500 > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="US-ASCII" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Priority: 3 > X-Msmail-Priority: Normal > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 > X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 > Sender: owner-constitution@lsmsaaa.org > Precedence: bulk > > >3.2 Retroactive Rate Increases > >Changes in the dues requirements (through Section 9, governing > >constitutional amendments) may not be retroactive; anyone who has > >paid dues for a given fiscal year before the new rate structure > >takes effect will still qualify as having paid dues for that > >year. No change in the dues requirements may revoke Lifetime > >Membership once someone has qualified. > > > I got swamped a while back during the dues discussion, so I don't know if > this issue has already been raised. How would this section affect a person > who had, say, paid 3 years of lifetime dues paid but then a dues increase > occurs? In this case, if somone has paid three years worth of $15 dollar > dues, could that person finish off with 7 years of $15? I would favor the > interpretation that would be finishing off with 7 years of $25, and the > person not going back to pay the extra $10 per year. My intention (which I think agrees with Steve's, but may not be completely unambiguous from the writing) is: 1997 - lifetime dues at $15 1997 - Joe Giftie payes $15x3. 1998 - lifetime dues increase to $25/year. 1998 - Joe still covered since payed before increase 1999 - Joe still covered since payed before increase 2000 - Joe decides to finish paying lifetime dues: $25x7 Joe is set regardless of any further changes in dues. Andre' ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 14:13:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Dennis Voss Subject: Re: Dues revised (and increased) On Sun, 12 Oct 1997, Brian Beavers wrote: > I would favor the > interpretation that would be finishing off with 7 years of $25, and the > person not going back to pay the extra $10 per year. That's exactly what my language intended. I have a clause protecting someone against retroactive dues increases, which covers the second part of your sentence (no extra $10). And otherwise, by the definition of what's required to meet dues status, if the Constitution were amended to increase dues then any remaining years left to be paid would be at the new rate (in this example, $25). Let me know if you think the language somehow imples otherwise, and we can work on a revision to clarify. steve - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- D. Stephen Voss (dsvoss@wjh.harvard.edu) Eat your beans, then some mutton, Department of Government, GSAS don't pee ... and go on looking Harvard University after you obsession! Oh! my hypothesis! M-38 Littauer Bldg. Oh! my fame! I shall be immortal! Immortal! Cambridge, MA 02138 Doktor (from Wozzeck) - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of LSMSAAA Constitution Digest V1 #14 *****************************************