Bylaws change for two year board terms

There will be a change discussed and voted on at tonight’s annual meeting to the member rights section. I wanted to post it up here so people can state whether or not they’ll vote for it and why, so members without background don’t feel like they’re coming in cold.

The full change is here:

Summary: Two year board terms with half the board elected each year.

President ,Treasurer, At-Large 1 and 3 are elected on odd number years with Vice President, Secretary, At-Large 2 and 4, being elected on even numbered years.

That’s the change right now, the actual ballot will have the final proposal as discussed at tonight’s meeting.

Malissa is proposing the changes and will present them at the meeting, this thread is for discussion

I will be voting no to this. The current board and most future board members could not reach a consensus on the matter. Adding longer terms does not help the issues we have. If you are doing your job, and membership wants to elect you for a second year, then thats up to them. let the membership decide each year.

1 Like

I agree with Jeremiah’s points and I’ll be voting no as well. Even though longer board terms are common at other non-profits, I’m not aware of any other non-profit that has a board structure like we have at MakeICT. Just because it may seem like a good thing on some other board, doesn’t mean it will work at MakeICT.

Plus we seem to end up introducing about as many problems as we fix when we try to “tweak” the bylaws with isolated changes. We should be initiating a comprehensive review and rewrite of the bylaws, not isolated changes.

1 Like

I believe it’s important for membership to understand these proposals aren’t coming from the board, they are coming from one person.

No they are not coming from one person. They are coming from a committee that was recommended by a professional in the industry. I may have lead the committee, personally do not care if it passes or fails. The fact is it got more people into the conversation and realizing we need change, that is what matters to me. I hope that those who are talking about it now take the time to come together and address all the issues in our current bylaws.

1 Like

The majority of the current board don’t support this, yet you pushed it anyways. This is another reason to not allow one person to be on 20 committees, area lead, board member, etc. Too much influence from one person. I see you as an “I want it my way, and my way only” kind of person. You are not willing to compromise. You did the same thing with NomCon. You don’t care about consensus.

Seems like bringing it before the entire membership so more people can be part of the discussion is actually the epitome of caring about consensus.


If the board doesn’t support it, and it affects them directly, why push it?

I can think of 2 good reasons off the top of my head.

  1. Because leaders are rarely, if ever, perfect representations of their constituents. If they aren’t at least trying to listen and be good representatives, then they aren’t good leaders.

  2. Because shutting down pertinent conversation does not encourage healthy dialogue.


These proposals aren’t coming from the membership as a whole, they are coming from one rogue Board member. That doesn’t encourage healthy dialogue either. It’s like asking your Mother for some money, she says no, So you go to your Dad. the cycle repeats until someone gets what they want. Even when it creates a rift between others.

I will be voting YES for this bylaw change. Malissa is not a rogue board member and is not alone in presenting this proposal for a vote. I pushed for it too.
This proposal is the first step in ushering MakeICT Institute into the future and recognizing that it is a growing organization that needs an established and professional board of directors.

Remember in this discussion, and all in all interactions, to be excellent to each other. We are first and foremost members. Be excellent. Stop bullying.

Kez Cook

Board Member

1 Like

These statements are extremely misleading at best, but seem to me to fall more towards being blatantly false. I don’t remember every current board member’s position on this issue, but of the 6 who are running for re-election and have posted their position in this forum 4 support 2 year terms, one is undecided, and 1 is opposed.

False statements about the words and actions of others have no place on this forum or in our community.


If you read though meeting note and past discussion, you will find what I am about to say in at least 5 places. While, every member is entitled to there opinion and to speak their opinion, the only way to gauge the opinion of the membership is with a vote. The current bylaws have be followed as stated to bring these changes to the membership. I have copied ArticleVII and the voting standing rule below. At any time any member can petition for a Bylaw Change, do I agree with this no, but we are working from what we currently have.

Article VII: Amendments
These bylaws may be amended only when an amendment proposal petition is approved by an affirmative vote of at least 2/3rds (two thirds) of the members voting.

Any member in good standing can vote at the annual meeting. The voting period will begin at a specified time during the annual meeting and will end 48 hours later. Voting will be conducted online and current members will receive an email with a unique link for their vote. All nominees will be listed on the form and write-ins will not be allowed as there will not be time for the nominee to consider and decline.

I ,as another moderator of, know Christian handle you all equally, you all were addressed about your inappropriate behavior.

1 Like

Who decides what is and isn’t “inappropriate behavior”? Picking and choosing is wrong. It isn’t stated we cant bring up religion, politics etc. Once again we have to many people in multiple positions of power. When I questioned Christian directly about the issue , I was told it isn’t any of my Business. What happened to the transparency we once sought so badly? Ridiculous.

Oh the irony of you continuing to accuse people of trying to silence you in a conversation where you are literally trying to withhold a vote of the membership.

Look, I’m a member at large who wants to have this conversation. I haven’t decided on how I will vote on it, and your attempts at silencing the conversation are hindering constructive discussion. Please stop creating unnecessary barriers.

1 Like

The whole point is that 1. We could end up with 100 proposals from all 375ish members. How would we handle that? we would have to ask the questions. Our annual meeting would take 3 weeks…

  1. Current and nominated board members were asked about 2 year terms. The majority was against it. So why push something the people affected don’t want. We cant even get volunteers, why push away the volunteers willing to run for office?

The way it is set up currently , I could propose literally anything, and it would have to go on out for a vote. that seems ridiculous to say the least. ?

We are all obviously passionate enough to run for office, or volunteer for other positions. I just hope when the smoke clears people can work together.