Go to:
Discussion
Online Doc
File
Poll
Event
Meeting Request
Suggestion
Thom Barthelmess's picture

Motion from O&B: Change in frequency of service for Batchelder, Geisel and Wilder Committees

This poll has closed.
Aye
0% (0 votes)
Nay
0% (0 votes)
Abstain
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 0
AttachmentSize
MOTION-Bylaw VIII.doc38 KB
Thom Barthelmess's picture

To discuss the motion, please make your comments here.

You'll see that O&B has done a tremendous job. In addition to adding the three committees that the Board asked them to add, they have re-alphabetized the list of committees, and added the committee makeups for the new committees, in the interest of consistency.

Marge Loch-Wouters's picture

I agree.  The motion for the bylaw change does reflect what we discussed at Midwinter and they prettied it up so it is clear.

Marge Loch-Wouters, Consultant

Loch-Works Consulting

lochwouters@gmail.com

 

www.lacrosselibrary.org

Julie Corsaro's picture

Thank you for the opportunity for online discussion. My understanding is that without this bylaw members may serve on Wilder, Geisel, and Batchelder for two consecutive terms, just as they can for most ALSC "process" committees.

Regarding the motion, I am wondering if it correct to say, "This guideline will not apply to ALSC's other joint award committees" since the previous sentence refers to ALSC-only committees. Would it be more accurate to say, "This guideline will not apply to ALSC's joint award committees?" eliminating the word "other?"

Julie

Marge Loch-Wouters's picture

My understanding of this motion is not that a member may serve more than one consecutive term on the committees that are being added to the bylaw.  Rather  that we are trying to involve a wider number of members on service to these committees rather than having members serve on first one award; then be appointed immediately to yet another; followed close on the heels on being appointed to yet another committee. 

Also, in terms of the wording, I think it is important to recognize that any other committee (the so-called process committees) will not be affected by this change so, to me, the wording there can stand.

I see your point about the the joint award committees not being included but I wonder whether the fact that they are unnamed in the bylaw here takes care of that concern?

Marge Loch-Wouters, Consultant

Loch-Works Consulting

lochwouters@gmail.com

 

www.lacrosselibrary.org

Julie Corsaro's picture

I'm sorry to be confusing--I certainly understand what we are trying to accomplish with the by-law change.

As a Board at MW, we had decided to add the "four-year-rule" to Wilder, Geisel and Batchelder. At the same Board meeting, I had asked if we had to put this to a vote of the membership, and was told "no" because it was not part of the bylaws for these three committees. When it came to our attention last week that adding the "four-year" rule for Wilder, Geisel and Batchelder did indeed need to go to the full membership for a vote, I was curious about what had happened. Aimee clarified that after further investigation it was revealed that such a revision probably does need to have a bylaw change voted on by the full membership. If you recall, this issue was brought to the attention of the Board because a member had recently served two-consecutive terms on Wilder. According to the current bylaws, members can serve two-consecutive terms on most ALSC committees, a rule that currently applies to Wilder, Batchelder and Geisel, and will continue to do so, unless specifically stated otherwise. I apologize if I muddied the waters by speaking to current (perhaps, not well known) practice.

Thanks, Julie

 

 

 

Jennifer Ralston's picture

Hi, everyone! So, Julie-what you are saying is that in order to negate the old bylaw, we need to specifically state in our revision that no one can serve 2 consecutive terms? That the 4-year separation between serving on committees might not be enough, that the way the new revision is written it may still allow this? I am just trying to understand. Or, are you just clarifying your previous post? I am dashing back and forth from my spare room to the computer room. We just got a new kitten (7 weeks old) and he is in the safe room as we have 2 other adult cats. :-)

Tali Balas's picture

I do not think I would change the wording from "other ALSC committees." To me it is clear that this rule only applies to the aforementioned committees and adding joint begs the question about process committees.

Jennifer Ralston's picture

I understand what Julie is saying, but I think, like Tali, that the motion seems clear as it refers ONLY to the committees mentioned, and all others are outside of the motion.

Cecilia McGowan's picture

I agree with Tali and Julie; it is clear as written.