PROlapse said:
Quote:
Once one has obtained full membership, said member need only attend one meeting and one LAN event each semester to maintain full membership status.
There are a LOT of people who attended LANs and meetings last semester, but since the membership log had to be revamped for the new constitution, many of them no longer count as members. So, I purpose you give those people full membership.
To be a member, you have to attend 2 LAN events and “half” the meetings in a 1 year period. Most of the WCUGA members should still be members here.
The only problems I forsee is if it appears that WCUGA members are coming to our election meeting solely to vote their own execs back in and “take over” the club so to speak. Now if this is genuinely what the members of both clubs want then there is no problem but from the tone we’re seeing with your facebook and forum posts the elections could very well already be decided before the meeting even starts and even you can admit that that’s not how things should be done. If 20 WCUGA members attend the meeting and all 20 of them vote for their own person for every position… it just reaks of staged voting.
PROlapse said:
Quote:
If an officer is removed from their position they cannot run for that office again for the period of two years. This restriction also pertains to officers who resign after the removal proceedings have begun. Removal proceedings is defined as the investigation of an officer or the scheduling of a meeting for their removal.
Under most situations, I would approve of this clause, but I feel that the removal proceedings last semester were not defined well enough, and his removal should be invalidated.
I believe this temporary changes for one meeting would be enough of a compromise to bring both clubs together and satisfy the majority of the students who care about the gaming community on campus.
There was some vagueness to the process b/c of website updating issues and I apologized for that in my first post. If it would make things right between us I’m sure the execs would be more than willing to remove that restriction from Kazka but it wouldn’t really make a difference as one of the current VPs has the right to step up to the president position and fill his remaining term that lasts until spring 2011. If I’m not mistaken he’s graduating next spring so it would be inappropriate for him to run for the president position.
If the only way to make this right is to instantly put your leader back in charge here you’re being unfair.