[Businessmtg] Possible amendment for the current motion

[Steve Rankin]

Hi Jerry,
Right now, the topic on the floor is the motion to approve the bylaws as
amended by the members of ASP in this meeting.
We are no longer discussing the language of the bylaws, and we are certainly
not trying to discuss the possibility of unknown issues that may arise in
the future.  
One Day at a Time.  
I'll note that every point raised by a member during the discussion of the
bylaws language resulted in a corresponding change in the language of the
bylaws, with the exception of issues that conflicted with existing group
consciences of ASP.   
Love and SERENITY,
Steve




-----Original Message-----
From: Businessmtg On Behalf Of Jerry
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:55 AM
To: steve at serenitysys.com
Cc: ASP Business <businessmtg at asp-afg.org>
Subject: Re: [Businessmtg] Possible amendment for the current motion

Biz-Pals,

By the standard Marilyn mentions, NOT approving the proposed by-laws as
written would not be permitted. The problems, such as they possibly exist,
are that in the short time the draft has been on the table, nominal reviews
have begun to reveal needs for so-far minor changes.

Now we could pass this then make changes in the future, but in what
time-frame would those changes make it through our deliberative process?
What other potential problems are hidden on the details? Additionally, each
future by-law change would incur State filing charges - costs which could be
avoided should we spend a little more time now.

Please don't interpret this or my other inputs as being against
incorporation. From the beginning I have seen incorporation as a viable
solution to the problems we were having as a result of new banking
regulations.  As some here know, I was one of the earliest to recognize how
the 9-11 attacks affected how groups such as ours could open new accounts.
Treasurers were required to have their personal Social Security numbers
attached to our account - making our money "theirs" from the government's
point of view. This caused actual problems when one of our Treasurers would
be deemed ineligible for a benefit because our treasury was included in
their income/cash on hand and another refused to use their SS#.
Additionally, changes of Treasurers on our PayPal account were unnecessarily
cumbersome.

ASP needs incorporation and to do so requires By-Laws. I believe it behooves
us to spend what little time it might take to get the details right during
this phase so we're not back at the table again and again. ["Slow motion
gets you there faster"]

~ Naming Steve in Motion 10 felt natural all those tears ago. By-Laws should
be as general or generic as possible so as to minimize the need for future
changes. In retrospect general language would have been better than naming
Steve (and only Steve.) So why memorialize that choice of 11+ years ago in
today's By-Laws?

~ Are there other points that would benefit from similar reconsideration? Do
these proposed By-Laws conform only to the State of Washington's minimum
requirements or do they unnecessarily lock us into details we wouldn't have
to include?

What I have a hard time understanding is why compressing our review/voting
process into what's really just a short time - when we could just as easily
all be back here in March ready to finalize this thing to (almost?)
everyone's satisfaction - is so problematic.

Jerry