Bylaws Suspension Questions

[Guest guest]

, Bruce, and respected BOD members:

You seem to show the wisest respect for the importance of the Bylaws and

of the rules of fair play, and thus I would address this question to you

for your consideration.

The recent urgent 48-hour board meeting email vote called by Matt

Roloff and conducted by LPA's Board of Directors addressed only 1 (one)

Bylaw that pertained to my eligibility to run for National Office. This

was Article IV, Section 2B. Under this Bylaw even I agree that I am not

eligible.

However there is a prior official Bylaw which also speaks to eligibility

for National Office. This previous Bylaw is Article V, Section 6, and the

interpretation made by myself and many others was that I am, in fact,

eligible under that Bylaw.

Since the two Bylaws appear to conflict, van Etten was consulted by

Matt Roloff to interpret them for him. interpreted that under

Article V, Section 6, I am eligible to run for National Office, and that

the two Bylaws are in conflict.

Unfortunately, the recent emergency 48-hour board vote did not solve this

conflict -- Article V, Section 6 still remains in the latest version of

the Bylaws.

Potentially even more concerning is that this 48-hour board vote may have

violated the Bylaws themselves; specifically: ARTICLE XIX, Rules Of Order,

which states that " The latest revision of Rules of Order shall be

the guide for conduct of all meetings. "

Specifically, it is my understanding that certain Board Members wished to

discuss the issue prior to voting, and were not permitted to do so under

the auspices of 's Rules. Thus, their votes were simply recorded as

" NO VOTE " .

I humbly await your interpretation of these situations.

Sincerely,

Bradford

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Bruce F. Bachmann wrote:

> There had been mention of the conflict in the Bylaws but no one took the

> time to point out where the conflict presented itself. 1. Article V,

> Section 6 says: All voting members are eligible for candidacy for

> chapter, district and national office. I am assume this is the line on

> which the conclusion that you are eligible to run is based.

Well, the issue is moot now, but to answer your question -- no, it is the

entire article/section upon which our conclusion was based. This reads:

ARTICLE V, SECTION 6 - CANDIDACY

All voting members are eligible for candidacy for chapter, district, and

national office. A member who desires to run for a District office

position must be a paid member for 2 consecutive years. A MEMBER WHO

DESIRES TO RUN FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE MUST BE A PAID MEMBER FOR 3

CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

The all bold portion is the key sentence which would favor my eligibility.

You see, I am currently in my 3rd consecutive year of my LPA Life

Membership.

The database unfortunately doesn't go back beyond 1986, but to my

recollection I have been a paid member of LPA for at least 23 of my 41

years on this earth.

Sincerely,

[Guest guest]

,

Thanks for finally giving me something more then innuendoes and conspiracies

theories.

This is something, based on facts that can be looked at and scrutinized.

There had been mention of the conflict in the Bylaws but no one took the

time to point out where the conflict presented itself.

A few questions to help me:

1. Article V, Section 6 says:

All voting members are eligible for candidacy for chapter,

district and national office.

I am assume this is the line on which the conclusion that you are

eligible to run is based.

However it continues on to address the 2/3 consecutive year dues paid

issue.

My question:

Is it proper to take one line out of a Section and have it stand

independent of the full text of that Section. My first impression would be

no.

Example: Article III-Purpose

The first line states " The purpose of LPA is to assists dwarfs with

their physical and developmental concerns resulting from short stature. "

Is it OK to then not follow the remaining part of the Article.

I would like to hear from as to how she arrived at her interpolation

of this Article as I look into it further.

Please understand I am not challenging an ones interpolation, I just would

like to know what their think process was that brought them to the

conclusions they made.

The Rules of Order issue is troubling and will require more time for

me to research.

I will look in to it and let you know what I think.

I would like to here from any BOD members who wished to discuss the matter

further and had their votes recorded as " No Vote " .

Again, thank you .

Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden

Bylaws " Suspension " Questions

> , Bruce, and respected BOD members:

>

> You seem to show the wisest respect for the importance of the Bylaws and

> of the rules of fair play, and thus I would address this question to you

> for your consideration.

>

> The recent urgent 48-hour board meeting email vote called by Matt

> Roloff and conducted by LPA's Board of Directors addressed only 1 (one)

> Bylaw that pertained to my eligibility to run for National Office. This

> was Article IV, Section 2B. Under this Bylaw even I agree that I am not

> eligible.

>

> However there is a prior official Bylaw which also speaks to eligibility

> for National Office. This previous Bylaw is Article V, Section 6, and the

> interpretation made by myself and many others was that I am, in fact,

> eligible under that Bylaw.

>

> Since the two Bylaws appear to conflict, van Etten was consulted by

> Matt Roloff to interpret them for him. interpreted that under

> Article V, Section 6, I am eligible to run for National Office, and that

> the two Bylaws are in conflict.

>

> Unfortunately, the recent emergency 48-hour board vote did not solve this

> conflict -- Article V, Section 6 still remains in the latest version of

> the Bylaws.

>

> Potentially even more concerning is that this 48-hour board vote may have

> violated the Bylaws themselves; specifically: ARTICLE XIX, Rules Of Order,

> which states that " The latest revision of Rules of Order shall be

> the guide for conduct of all meetings. "

>

> Specifically, it is my understanding that certain Board Members wished to

> discuss the issue prior to voting, and were not permitted to do so under

> the auspices of 's Rules. Thus, their votes were simply recorded as

> " NO VOTE " .

>

> I humbly await your interpretation of these situations.

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Bradford

[Guest guest]

,

Thank you for providing this additional information.

I would have to now say that I am now leaning toward agreeing with you.

Let's assume that you had not paid a life membership but rather were paying

on a year to year basis.

The Bylaw, as I intrepid it, would mean that on the day that you paid your

dues for the third consecutive year you would become eligible to run for

national office. The Bylaw does not say that it is at the END of your third

paid year but that you be paid for the third year.

Now I would not say that paying a Life membership would quality a candidate

on the day the Life membership is paid. Although it is paying for many more

than the three years needed to run for office, but rather on the anniversary

of the third date from the initial payment. Assuming the anniversary of your

paying is three years by 4/1/04 I would have to say you are eligible.

While the intent when the Bylaw was written may have been that it be at the

END of the third paid year I would have to say that it was not made clear in

the way it was written.

Is the point moot?

Perhaps not. I believe you could resubmit your intention to run for office

until midnight 4/1/04.

My understanding of the vote the BOD took was to uphold the Bylaws. In your

case you may very well be qualified.

A letter from a lawyer, independent of any LPA affiliation, confirming this

interpolation wouldn't hurt. It need not be a " threat " letter but simple a

letter confirming your eligibility under the Bylaws.

List:

Most importantly this shows that when you want to argue a point you need to

provide all the FACTS on which you make your argument. Following the Bylaws

(rules) works. Simply saying I/he/she was done wrong, someone has an agenda,

someone I know said this, I heard this happened, etc. is not good enough. I

believe that given all the facts in a Fair and Balanced, No Spin way,(opps

I'm going O' Reilly on you) good people will make the right decision.

Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden

Re: Bylaws " Suspension " Questions

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Bruce F. Bachmann wrote:

>

> > There had been mention of the conflict in the Bylaws but no one took the

> > time to point out where the conflict presented itself. 1. Article V,

> > Section 6 says: All voting members are eligible for candidacy for

> > chapter, district and national office. I am assume this is the line on

> > which the conclusion that you are eligible to run is based.

>

> Well, the issue is moot now, but to answer your question -- no, it is the

> entire article/section upon which our conclusion was based. This reads:

>

> ARTICLE V, SECTION 6 - CANDIDACY

>

> All voting members are eligible for candidacy for chapter, district, and

> national office. A member who desires to run for a District office

> position must be a paid member for 2 consecutive years. A MEMBER WHO

> DESIRES TO RUN FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE MUST BE A PAID MEMBER FOR 3

> CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

>

> The all bold portion is the key sentence which would favor my eligibility.

> You see, I am currently in my 3rd consecutive year of my LPA Life

> Membership.

>

> The database unfortunately doesn't go back beyond 1986, but to my

> recollection I have been a paid member of LPA for at least 23 of my 41

> years on this earth.

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ===

>

[Guest guest]

Bruce/:

Once again Bruce, I appreciate your words of wisdom and taking the time to

ferret out the small details we sometimes overlook and miss.

I would agree with Bruce's determination Dave, and I would think in light of

that you should be able to go ahead and announce your candidacy, which of course

is my own opinion and in trying to be fair and impartial in it. There are two or

three candidates already announced for most positions and I think the say on VP

of Membership and all the Exec positions will come down to the final vote of the

membership in a couple of months. So I would like to see you have the same

opportunity to join the fray!

Olson

" Bruce F. Bachmann " <bfbmrb@...> wrote:,

Thank you for providing this additional information.

I would have to now say that I am now leaning toward agreeing with you.

Let's assume that you had not paid a life membership but rather were paying

on a year to year basis.

The Bylaw, as I intrepid it, would mean that on the day that you paid your

dues for the third consecutive year you would become eligible to run for

national office. The Bylaw does not say that it is at the END of your third

paid year but that you be paid for the third year.

Now I would not say that paying a Life membership would quality a candidate

on the day the Life membership is paid. Although it is paying for many more

than the three years needed to run for office, but rather on the anniversary

of the third date from the initial payment. Assuming the anniversary of your

paying is three years by 4/1/04 I would have to say you are eligible.

While the intent when the Bylaw was written may have been that it be at the

END of the third paid year I would have to say that it was not made clear in

the way it was written.

Is the point moot?

Perhaps not. I believe you could resubmit your intention to run for office

until midnight 4/1/04.

My understanding of the vote the BOD took was to uphold the Bylaws. In your

case you may very well be qualified.

A letter from a lawyer, independent of any LPA affiliation, confirming this

interpolation wouldn't hurt. It need not be a " threat " letter but simple a

letter confirming your eligibility under the Bylaws.

List:

Most importantly this shows that when you want to argue a point you need to

provide all the FACTS on which you make your argument. Following the Bylaws

(rules) works. Simply saying I/he/she was done wrong, someone has an agenda,

someone I know said this, I heard this happened, etc. is not good enough. I

believe that given all the facts in a Fair and Balanced, No Spin way,(opps

I'm going O' Reilly on you) good people will make the right decision.

Bruce, Proud Grandpa of Brenden

Re: Bylaws " Suspension " Questions

> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Bruce F. Bachmann wrote:

>

> > There had been mention of the conflict in the Bylaws but no one took the

> > time to point out where the conflict presented itself. 1. Article V,

> > Section 6 says: All voting members are eligible for candidacy for

> > chapter, district and national office. I am assume this is the line on

> > which the conclusion that you are eligible to run is based.

>

> Well, the issue is moot now, but to answer your question -- no, it is the

> entire article/section upon which our conclusion was based. This reads:

>

> ARTICLE V, SECTION 6 - CANDIDACY

>

> All voting members are eligible for candidacy for chapter, district, and

> national office. A member who desires to run for a District office

> position must be a paid member for 2 consecutive years. A MEMBER WHO

> DESIRES TO RUN FOR A NATIONAL OFFICE MUST BE A PAID MEMBER FOR 3

> CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

>

> The all bold portion is the key sentence which would favor my eligibility.

> You see, I am currently in my 3rd consecutive year of my LPA Life

> Membership.

>

> The database unfortunately doesn't go back beyond 1986, but to my

> recollection I have been a paid member of LPA for at least 23 of my 41

> years on this earth.

>

> Sincerely,

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ===

>