Meeting minutes:
Members Present: Josh Lenox, Matthew Gardner, Will Corey
Members Not Present: Mike Sidebottom, Barbara Daniels, Don Tommasko

1. Discussed next year's SNPC. Voted 3-0 to ask for bids by 09/17/08. The BOD will decide then about the bids.
2. Discussed fundraising and ways to increase bag tag funds.
3. Voted 3-0 to allow clubs to bid on the 2010 champs. Suggested cut off date is 11/15/08 with the winners announced on 12/01/08.
4. Discussed Mathew Gardner's rating system. Asked Matthew to email the information to the BOD to be discussed at a later meeting.
5. JK has not had time to finalize SNAC and SNPC financials. Will discuss when available.

Josh

Additional votes were recieved on beginning bidding immediately for next year's championships. I have started a thread on the main forum page.

Josh

How can the BOD only vote with 3 members? If the BOD is six members and Jim Orum is the seventh tie breaking vote, where is the majority with 3?

Dangerous Don

don they sent us the format and then we voted; now if you want to make a silly rule like you have to be there on the net that night then let's slow the process down even more; i think as long as all board members have the ability to know the complete situation then he or she can vote at a later time. whats wrong with that.

Quote
mike sidebottom
don they sent us the format and then we voted; now if you want to make a silly rule like you have to be there on the net that night then let's slow the process down even more; i think as long as all board members have the ability to know the complete situation then he or she can vote at a later time. whats wrong with that.

roflmao, one word SNAC!

bob i can only think your bringing this up cause of the calvin episode; i sure hope it's for no other reason; as a bod we must follow all rules and he was within the rules; now if the rule needs to be changed i am for taking a much closer look. and im sure we will

Quote
mike sidebottom
bob i can only think your bringing this up cause of the calvin episode; i sure hope it's for no other reason; as a bod we must follow all rules and he was within the rules; now if the rule needs to be changed i am for taking a much closer look. and im sure we will

that is a part of it and the fact that only 3 people voted on my issue ;[

IS there an actual rule that says you have to have AM points to play SNACs?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take me to the window and understand
I got a rocking chair in my skin.
And every time the wind blows
It brings me down to meet the mood I'm in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SN Top25 Bag Tag database
BRDGA Top10 Bag Tag database
MADGA Top10 Bag Tag database
SFC Top10 Bag Tag database

Bob,

Read the other thread. We DIDN'T discuss your issue BECAUSE there were only 3 of us there. Of the other 2 issues we voted on, one of them would have had to of happened anyway, because we didn't have any proposals. The other, I didn't announce until I had votes from 2 of the other board members oking it.

Josh

Quote
dangerousdon
How can the BOD only vote with 3 members? If the BOD is six members and Jim Orum is the seventh tie breaking vote, where is the majority with 3?

For a quick explanation see my post to Bob above. I guess I should update the first post to say that we voted 5-0 to allow clubs to bid on the 2010 championships with 2 votes coming after the meeting by email.

I will say this, that I have been on the BOD for a year and in that time I have never been to a meeting where all 6 BOD members and Jim O have been in attendence. The most we have ever had was 5 BOD members present. Most of the time there were only 4 of us, and on several occasions 3 or less. One BOD member last year, just disappeared. He never resigned or offered an explanation for not attending the meetings, although he was included on every email I sent out.

Josh

Quote
Marla
Bob,

Read the other thread. We DIDN'T discuss your issue BECAUSE there were only 3 of us there. Of the other 2 issues we voted on, one of them would have had to of happened anyway, because we didn't have any proposals. The other, I didn't announce until I had votes from 2 of the other board members oking it.

Josh

I was not talking about your recent meeting. Just the fact that there have been votes with only 3 people in the past.

Thanks for keeping us updated!!!!

I was not being critical, I was just wondering based on the way it was worded. Mikey I think it is definitely OK to vote at a later date.

Dangerous Don

Originally the intent was for there to be a majority of the board when voting on issues (4 of 6) not a majority of those present. For the minor decisions made throughout the year we exercised flexibility for the reason Josh pointed out, attendence was an issue and it was almost impossible to get 6 to the meeting and never happened last year. JimO is a tie breaker but hasn't been used up to this point and he doesn't attend the bi-weekly board meetings.

Good luck to the new members, the sn board has always been reactionary in regards to issues discussed, which is normal and I hope the new guys coming in understand that the SN can be made better but it's definitely not broken...

John k