Bylaw Proposal Clarification

[PE_PLS]

I haven't really participated in this debate thus far, and probably won't, but just an observation: It matters who says what. Whether we like it or not we ALL come to the table with an agenda. It helps to know who is speaking as it may shed light on what they are saying and why.

I liken all of us stakeholders to those who fund political campaigns. As you know in the last major elections the Koch brothers made a HUGE campaign contribution to one of the California propositions. But they tried to remain anonymous by doing it through proxy by some front in Arizona. Eventually they were found out. We know that when the Koch brothers donate to something, it means something. We call it special interests. As stakeholders in CLSA (and those who have funded this cause), we all have interests in the outcome. Let's not be afraid to say who we are, and it will help others to understand where we are coming from. If you are afraid to say who you are, it's hard to take you seriously. I don't buy the notion that an argument stands on its own merits. We all know that words can be manipulated, but when we know the one speaking the words is of good reputation, that is what REALLY makes an argument stand.

[7702]

thorny!

7702, I'm with you on this one.

"7702" is so impersonal. I actually prefer "Mark". : )

[7702]

Bylaw Proposal Clarification

I have heard that CLSA is in the process of expelling a member. Comments indicate that the expulsion is because the leadership is angry due to sensitive questions being asked. What is going on? Why isn’t this reported to the membership?
Just as an employer would not publish employee reviews or disciplinary actions, a Board of Directors does not publish disciplinary actions of a Director. For the good of the Director and the Association, confidentiality is maintained.

CLSA has proven repeatedly that it's operations are not consistent with an employer type relationship, and has no employees itself. To use the above example to justify maintaining confidentiality is a bit of a stretch.

Has anyone verified that withholding such information from corporation members is even legal?

Although we will not disclose the reasons for any possible disciplinary action, we assure the membership it has nothing to do with sensitive questions being asked. Lately, the Board of Directors has been dealing with an unprecedented situation; one that has forced the Board to take action under attorney-client privilege session. We ask that you can maintain trust and confidence that they will do what is in the best interest of CLSA.

CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 950-962

950. As used in this article, "lawyer" means a person authorized,
or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized, to practice
law in any state or nation.

951. As used in this article, "client" means a person who, directly
or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer for the
purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice
from him in his professional capacity, and includes an incompetent
(a) who himself so consults the lawyer or (b) whose guardian or
conservator so consults the lawyer in behalf of the incompetent.

Does "person" as highlighted above, apply to Board members of a corporation?

Thank you.

[7702]

[7702]

What is/was the deadline for voting on the proposed bylaws?

If there's still time, I would like to participate.

Thank you.

[pls7809]

Postmark date for the ballots was 9/10, or yesterday. But I would reccomend, if you haven't mailed it yet, to mail it anyway.

[7702]

What's the deadline if its hand delivered and where do I get my ballot?

[E_Page]

What's the deadline if its hand delivered and where do I get my ballot?

Call the Central Office. Unless here's some rule or statute against it (and there probably is), they might take your ballot if you drive it over to Santa rosa this week.


Oh, and a corporation as an entity has the same legal standing as a person for purposes of the statute you posted earlier.

[7702]

Thanks Evan.

I won't be voting. I trust that everyone has voted with the best interests of the profession in mind.