[Noisebridge-discuss] Bylaws committee

[Sai Emrys]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Ian Atha <thatha at thatha.org> wrote:
> In the meeting, the idea of cognitive dissonance between our practices
> and what the bylaws say, were discussed. As an example, Christy
> mentioned that the >$50k transaction reporting requirement shouldn't
> be there, as we're unlikely to be involved in such transactions.

As I mentioned before, contracts and bylaws are not necessarily meant
for normal course of business. They handle exceptions too.

In this case, I think a counterargument would be "I don't think the ED
ought to report >$50k transactions". "I don't think they will happen"
just means it's cruft; not that it's a bad bylaw to have. And let's be
honest, lots of such laws *are* CYA cruft that are only occasionally
relevant. That's what they're there for; arguing against it is as
futile as arguing against most of law.*

The reporting rule, AFAICT, is fully satisfied by merely having an
open budget - something that I've seen NB have before and think ought
to be an expectation of a relatively openly run organization like
this. Perhaps Jeffrey could just make whatever he's using for a
spreadsheet / accounting program publicly accessible?

Also, in practice, the ED makes the Treasurer do this report. The law
is simply constructed such that the ED is the one ultimately
responsible.

> (It  seems that that particular requirement derives straight from
> California statutes:
> http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CORP/1/1/d2/2/13/2/s6322)

Right. This is not one that you get to change. Such is boilerplate...

Again, the Nolo book is fairly good at this; anyone seriously aiming
to amend boilerplate (rather than add new stuff) should read it.

- Sai

P.S. For filtering: unnecessary [drama], yo.

* something I think could seriously use a reform for current salience
and modern tech and plain language and concision and so forth, but
when's that ever going to happen eh :-P