Need to use the engine hoist offsite today

[Phillip_Hardwick]

Also we in the case of tool tracking, that sort of system would not be hard to implement and in this case specifically i think it would be quite clear to all where the tool was and who has it.

[jast]

So either Brandon or a Board member may give you the permission you seek.

From reading the rules for “the other thread”, Brandon’s OK is not needed, nor is enough to meet the requirement, as the only Officers listed are Alex Rhoads, President, and Robert Davidson, Secretary. As they both are board members as well, these are effectively the same avenue.

[Phillip_Hardwick]

I understand that and i will, i chose to continue discussion because i think it is a subject in need of discussion publicly.

[Phillip_Hardwick]

So commitee chairs are not officers? Are they non coms?

[jast]

I am not asserting this. I don’t know what a “non com” is.
I am saying that the “Officers” linked in the rule note include only these 2.

[Phillip_Hardwick]

So is this a set situation? Are you telling me no i cannot have permission to use the tool off site, or is this a subject up for any sort of discussion and debate?

[Phillip_Hardwick]

Sorry, ex military junk. Non comms are non commisioned officers, seargents, petty officers, corporals

[jast]

Gotcha.
It appears to me at this point that committee chairs are nebulous janitors of the committee and its resources, so…yeah, I guess that’s close enough. Many “duties”, no authority.

[wandrson]

It does not actually say ‘not allowed’ in the rules if i am not mistaken. It says they must stay on premises so tat other users may use them.

I quoted exactly what is says. Removing an item without the permission of a board member or officer is considered theft. Period. Asking (and complaining about the answers you get) on the talk forum does nothing to solve your problem.

[wandrson]

From reading the rules for “the other thread”, Brandon’s OK is not needed, nor is enough to meet the requirement, as the only Officers listed are Alex Rhoads, President, and Robert Davidson, Secretary. As they both are board members as well, these are effectively the same avenue.

Committee chairs are officers of the corporation, and as the chair who is responsible for this tool he is able to authorize a member to borrow it. So can any one member of the board. That is what the rule says.

[jast]

Committee chairs are officers of the corporation, and as the chair who is responsible for this tool he is able to authorize a member to borrow it. So can any one member of the board. That is what the rule says.

No. It doesn’t.
It expressly states “officers”, complete with a reference to the list of officers. That list contains 2 people, and the committee chairs are NOT included.
The committee chairs may be considered officers in some instances, but in this instance, that is not provided for. Were there no reference to the list of officers, you would have an argument, but there is a reference document.

[AlexRhodes]

So is this a set situation? Are you telling me no i cannot have permission to use the tool off site, or is this a subject up for any sort of discussion and debate?

I am telling you no, please dont remove any tools from the space. It is up for debate but thats for a board or member meeting (would have to wait till august member meeting as cut off for July items has passed) and it will be quicker for you to just bring your cars to the space.

[wandrson]

No. It doesn’t.It expressly states “officers”, complete with a reference to the list of officers.

Sigh,

Article 3.1.3 Other Officers

1. The Board of Directors may appoint by resolution any number of other officers deemed necessary to conduct the business and affairs of the corporation.

Article 3.2 Officer Titles

1. The Board of Directors may rename the position held by any officer.
2. Officers may rename the position held for the duration of his or her tenure, unless otherwise requested by the Board of Directors.
3. Any new title may not:
   • Convey confusion with the responsibilities of the office; or
   • Convey a conflict with other offices held.

Committee chairs are officer authorized to manage their areas. They are officer covered under our Directors and Officer’s insurance policy. We also have procurement officers. Basically any executive role granted to an individual by the board makes them an officer.

[jast]

Sigh,

Seriously?

I leave to your tenacity to look up where you have, on this very discussion board, defended my position, that when a term is explicitly defined in the documentation, other definitions do not apply.

The quote you have provided does not in any way support your assertion; it only supports the mechanism by which your assertion may be implemented.

[wandrson]

Seriously?

Sorry, It’s just that I just had this conversation with someone else yesterday. Any executive role authorized by the board make the role an officer, period. Officers are explicitly NOT limited to just the two or three enumerated within the bylaws, which is what the bylaws I quoted above specify. Further, committee chairs have their role defined extremely broadly and are given total authority over their areas and the tools within it. That is what the current rules state.

I will also point out that if your position was correct then our current D&O insurance policy would only cover the five board members…

[lukeiamyourfather]

This fuss isn’t worth it. Just buy rent one.

https://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/pts/5651679587.html

Also the engine hoist in the automotive area I think belongs to a member unless it was donated.

[jast]

I am going to disagree with you, stand by my assertion that you are contradicting other arguments you have made on this very discussion board, and move along now.

@Phillip_Hardwick
Sorry to jack your thread.
I think since Alex has spoken, in this particular episode, finding another board member (or committee chair) who is fully cognizant of the entire situation to disagree with him will be fruitless.
You make some solid points, and I hope to see you bring this to the Members and/or Board. Rules like this should be re-evaluated periodically to ensure our membership is best served.

[Lampy]

You make some solid points, and I hope to see you bring this to the Members and/or Board. Rules like this should be re-evaluated periodically to ensure our membership is best served.

Exactly, DMS run by active participants. If you think a rule needs changing, removed or added, then get it on a member or board agenda.

[zmetzing]

Even if i were pulling the engines in house and swapping the trucks manually by pushing them in and out of the bay the hoist would still be just as unusable as me having it in use 2 miles or 20 miles away.

It is unlikely you’d walk away and “forget to return” the tool if it remained at DMS, so I find your reasoning flawed. Peer pressure to free up the bay goes a long way to keep people from keeping vehicles in the bay for an unreasonable time, while, if it were at your location, you might not give as much thought to the time that tool is not available for others.

A collective pool of money gives us all access to tools we could not otherwise afford. Suggesting i rent one 3rd party is completely contradictory to our purpose as an organization

The purpose of DMS is education, not tool rental. We must all share the tools, and a member taking a tool away from the facility (say, beyond the confines of the parking lot) may unreasonably deprive others of educational opportunities afforded by that resource.

(edit: Some insensitive or uncaring members have also deprived other members of resources even though no tool ever left DMS. That’s not being excellent, sadly.)

[Phillip_Hardwick]

For the record i have already rented the hoist from a 3rd party. This is a discussion on general principle for me not a ‘have it my way’ thing as has been suggested.