|
|
Post by Wilderness on Mar 5, 2016 19:33:17 GMT
Is there a complete context for this proposal? Or just the one line from the allthing minutes?
I'd like to know:
WHAT citizenship requirement, the same as officers as nothing else has been put forward yet? We discussed alternative requirements at field.
When will the requirements go into effect?
How will they be enforced? In the same way as officer attendance?
I feel it would be irresponsible to vote in a proposal isn't even in writing yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Therin C on Mar 5, 2016 20:28:21 GMT
From my understanding we are voting to add the requirement for a member of the BOD to meet attendance requirement to be a citizen of Caradoc Hold in order to be a member of the local BOD.
* We had not discussed a time but I would assume it would go effective immediately and effect all future local elections
* It would be enforced in the same way as officer attendance would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilderness on Mar 5, 2016 20:34:37 GMT
You and I have different understandings then. This is why the person who proposed this (Bill) needs to provide a complete context of what they are proposing before I can even consider voting yes on it.
We actually brought up in discussion an option for those members to have a lower requirement, and for it to take effect at 'some point in the future' or next election, but that hasn't been specified.
Are they required to be a citizen in order to run for, or in order to hold their office? Both?
I absolutely cannot even consider an amendment like this going into affect immediately that would immediately affect a siting BOD member. That would be absurd.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilderness on Mar 6, 2016 0:56:50 GMT
At present, I intend to move to table this vote until a complete proposal answering all of the appropriate questions is put forward. To still be defining the terms of a proposal on the day it's up for voting is not tenable to me.
|
|
