CDS Bylaws Revision

[Tegg]

So, since the CDS is a big part of cavediving and I noticed no one was discussing the changes to the By-Laws, I thought I would bring up a concern of mine.


Did anyone else notice the "significant change" in the CDS By-Laws revision?

" The significant change removes the limitation on the number of active instructors who may serve on the board."

Now, by no means am I against active intructors being on the board of the CDS, but "no limitation" of the number of instructors on the board?

I feel that the limitation of active instructors on the BOD is a GOOD thing. Not every member of the CDS is an instructor. The BOD is there to represent the membership and thus should represent the fact that NOT every member in the CDS is an active instructor.

I personally am voting NO to the proposed changes of the By-Laws as printed in UWS 33.4. I would have voted YES to the changes as they would have been listed in UWS 33.3.

How are you voting, and why?

[DeWayne]

I agree with you Joe. My only problem in voting is thus far I have not seen what I consider to be a concisely worded copy of the proposed revision. Do you by chance have a copy?

[Tegg]

I agree with you Joe. My only problem in voting is thus far I have not seen what I consider to be a concisely worded copy of the proposed revision. Do you by chance have a copy?

Well, I looked on the CDS website but could not find the correct version posted. Maybe someone from the CDS could help us obtain one.

[RH]

Joe I think you should throw your hat in the ring with NACD and become a chair or even better a board member.I think you would do a great job and be very helpful in getting thing done. I know theres some spots open think about it.

[DeWayne]

I agree with you Joe. My only problem in voting is thus far I have not seen what I consider to be a concisely worded copy of the proposed revision. Do you by chance have a copy?

Well, I looked on the CDS website but could not find the correct version posted. Maybe someone from the CDS could help us obtain one.

Yeah, I have a copy of what has been posted and it seems to contradict what was stated about eliminating the limit...hence my confusion. It would really be nice if they could just show us exactly what we are voting for, the old wording and the proposed new wording. It seems like a very simple request to me, but then who's to say

[billyf]

Here is my problem with 33.4

There was no notification!

Here is a direct quote from our bylaws
“Written notice of proposed amendments to the Bylaws must be presented to the members either by direct mail or via Underwater Speleology, a minimum of 60 day before ballots are mailed.”

33.3 is the version in the UWS for the proposed changed.

The only notification of the change to 33.4 is the significant change on the website. This is not acceptable they haven’t even provided the full wording of 33.4.

The way I see it is that 33.4 HAS to be removed or the entire election is in jeopardy of being declared invalid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[billyf]

Sorry but the quote that I used is one of the changes being voted on.

Here is the current and correct one:
“ARTICLE IX: This Constitution may be added to or amended by approval of greater than two thirds (2/3) of the membership of the CDS who cast ballots Section on a written ballot following a minimum of sixty (60) days written notice to all members.”

The point is that voting on 33.4 violates our Constitution!

[DeWayne]

After getting involved in a similar thread on another board I think the confusion has finally been cleared for me; many thanks go out to the BoD member who took the time to call and talk to me to explain everything. The funny part is that after all of the hoopala, the bylaws revision actually has nothing to do with imposed limits on the number of instructors who may serve as CDS BoD members at any given time. The original bylaws had no such provision for such a limit. A limit was discussed and proposed to be added to the revisions, but after much feedback from the membership that limit was dropped and the wording kept the same as the original document. The proposed revisions refelct changes needed in the wording to bring the bylaws up to date so that they are in line with the standards set forth by the state. As I understand it, a lawyer helped to point out the current deficiencies and then much effort was put forth to transform the legalese into something that the average person could understand while remaining in line with the standards. So voting yes or no really has nothing to do with how we feel about limiting the number of instructors who may serve as board members; it is simply about bringing what we have in line with what the state requires of such organizations. A vote no simply means that more effort will be needed to produce a revised set of bylaws that will satisfy our obligations to the state. The original bylaws can be read by going to the CDS home page http://www.nsscds.org/bylaws.html; the proposed revision, with the exception of Article III C update to not include the limit on instructors is posted on the web, is what was recently posted at http://www.nsscds.org/2006%20CDS%20P...20revision.pdf. Again, thanks to the BoD for helping to clear the confusion in my case.

> edited by Chip (fixed links)