If you have requested voting rights, please attend this Thursday’s member meeting or provide someone who will be there your proxy. Allen Wan has added what I consider to be two important items to the meeting agenda
While I consider the first item extremely important, the second item highlights that our board has been in violation of state law by conducting business in private (if Allen’s claim is true). This is a particularly serious issue with significant ramifications. At the very least, we do know that the board has met privately on multiple occasions to discuss issues for which proper notice, metting minutes, etc. were not kept. Example below
Please members try and make plans to come out to the membership meeting. You have the power to make change in the group and as Walter has highlighted change is needed. Here is a link to the Member Meeting Wiki Page.
Also, all voting rights were wiped after the election so you will need to request voting rights vial the Ticket System.
FUN FACT: Being a member in good standing and requesting voting rights means that “you have the voting rights!” Even if you do not receive a confirmation.
The bylaws explicitly requires the Board to provide notice for all meetings at which a quorum of directors will be present, and any matter of Makerspace business discussed - and provides NO exceptions to the rule.This includes chat rooms, hanging out at the space, telephone, email, etc etc etc. In simplest terms - the Board is absolutely required to conduct all board business in front of us. No private anything is permitted (whether they want to or not).
Voting members names and contact information are not private, but they aren’t public either. They are legally required to be made available to any member in good standing who requests it and provides a valid purpose.
Examples
Valid purpose would be contacting members to advocate for some issue before the members and/or board
Not valid purpose would be any commercial activity (say creating a mailing list for your business)
The complication between voting members and members regular members is that since the primary purpose of this law is to allow members to campaign for issues it is intended to apply to voting members; however, with our structure we have far more members who are able to vote then who may have activated those rights. For instance, when the recent board election was announced we had approximately 100 voting members; however, by the time of the election we had about 50 more voting members. I believe this would mean that any member who is eligible to become a voting member could have their name and contact information requested.
The law specifically states mailing address; however, as others have pointed out in the last board meeting, the purpose of the law is to facilitate members contacting members for advocacy for issues and the court would likely look unfavorably upon a denial of a request for email addresses. Not sure if we even maintain records on phone numbers, but we probably shouldn’t since they too would likely need to be made available.
Since we’ve gone down this path again, I will point out again, there is a BIIIIG difference in this legal requirement and “made public”. The information is to be “prepared” and “made available” to “members entitled to vote” ONLY (my addition and emphasis). For my take on this, as well, the wording in iTop should be made correct along the lines of “…billing system) will be made available to other voters.” as there is no “third party”; only voters. Here is the actual text:
Sec. 22.158. PREPARATION AND INSPECTION OF LIST OF VOTING MEMBERS. (a) After setting a record date for the notice of a meeting, a corporation shall prepare an alphabetical list of the names of all its voting members. The list must identify:
(1) the members who are entitled to notice and the members who are not entitled to notice of the meeting;
(2) the address of each voting member; and
(3) the number of votes each voting member is entitled to cast at the meeting.
(b) Not later than the second business day after the date notice is given of a meeting for which a list was prepared in accordance with Subsection (a), and continuing through the meeting, the list of voting members must be available at the corporation’s principal office or at a reasonable place in the municipality in which the meeting will be held, as identified in the notice of the meeting, for inspection by members entitled to vote at the meeting for the purpose of communication with other members concerning the meeting.
(c) A voting member or voting member’s agent or attorney is entitled on written demand to inspect and, at the member’s expense and subject to Section 22.351, copy the list at a reasonable time during the period the list is available for inspection.
(d) The corporation shall make the list of voting members available at the meeting. A voting member or voting member’s agent or attorney is entitled to inspect the list at any time during the meeting or an adjournment of the meeting.
And while I’m here.
Can anyone point me to the ByLaw, Rule, or other documentation regarding the reversion of “regular members” to “supporting members”? I seem to recall this being ratified, but I cannot find it.
Not entirely. That section only applies to voting in the annual member meeting (board election). Sub chapter H of the Texas Business Organization Code for Non-profits, section 351,
provides a much more general legal right for any member to request basically any record of the corporation and noticeably doesn’t list any restrictions on those records. Allen’s mention of not being required (or allowed) to provide SSN is covered under federal law. The following three sections in that chapter address those records (mostly financial) that the general public may request and also what they may not request. Also our own by laws confirm this general availability of corporate records.
I agree that the corporation is not required to make something ‘public’, but many of our members seem to believe that means the information is private, which it is NOT. There are very few things that can be legally kept private by the officers and officials of DMS.
I am assuming that you mean the ticket system, though I might be misreading.
The thing I always forget about logging in there is that you do not specify a domain in the username field. So whereas logging in to Windows machines you would use “dms\username” for iTop leave out the “dms”.
Just an FYI please don’t let Walter and Allen confuse y’all this is about Walter and Allen want to know who voted for who at the bod election. I had an attorney go and research it and he came back with absolutely not so they are trying to change the rules.
Honestly It sickens me that people want to make over arching rules to manipulate people without showing just cause. There was time when the unwritten rule was don’t make us make a rule. Honestly I grow tired of dealing with a constant barrage of politicking and manipulation. I just wish instead of games they focused on making.
This is about far more then verifying that our elections are above board. Where Allen an I are simply expecting you to follow State law and our own bylaws.
Curiously, according to the attorneys email you forwarded me from late last week, he gave you back the answer you discussed with him early last week, yet YOU gave me ‘his’ answer close to a month ago. Honestly, it sickens me when people lie.
The attorney gave you the opinion requested, and acknowledged in his email the opinion could be incorrect because he never even bothered to do any research on case law on the subject.
