On 15/08/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
I didn't realize that (note to self: read Florida Statutes). That's a pretty compelling argument for membership -- it could be a long term safeguard for the Foundation's principles.
I think this overstates the value of such a safeguard. The statute actually reads, "Any member of the board of directors may be removed from office with or without cause by the vote or agreement in writing by a majority of all votes of the membership."
(...)
The one method I can imagine of preserving this as a useful safeguard is to regularly prune the membership records. Considering the liberal eligibility being suggested for membership, and the general culture of openness in our community, such an approach would seem, to my mind at least, hypocritical in the extreme.
Remember that the requirements stipulated by the law are a minimum. In almost all cases, it means you can't give yourselfa requirement that's weaker ("directors can only be removed by unanimous agreement of all members and only in even-numbered years") but you are on perfectly solid ground adding one which is stronger ("directors can be removed by a majority vote amongst the membership, this vote having a quorum of five percent")
So if you want safeguards, the bylaws are the place for them; the statutory ones are only intended as a last-ditch defensive line against foolishness.