Ya gotta love politics[:)]
I would like some of ya'lls opinions as to a definition. What I would like defined is the term Charter Member.
To give you some background.... 23 years ago we formed our deer club. In our bylaws we stated that the only members that would ever be eligible to sit on the board or hold officer status would be "charter members" As time has gone by and effected things as it always does, we now have 12 of the original paying members left and about that many of their children (out of 40 families) In our club only the paying member gets a vote in general elections or policy decisions. Family members are listed as associate members. (I.E. the kids) The problem we have (or may be about to have) is that these kids are all starting to become paying members as well. On two separate occasions there have been board elections in which the kids have been recognized as charter members (they were listed on the original roles as associate members) In one of these elections a former associate member and now paying member was elected to the board. In the next election 6 former kids (charter associates) ran against the only two remaining original paying charter members. One of the adults won that one. Ok enough background.....
My question: Are we defining charter membership correctly in saying that ANYONE that was on the roles in 1986 be it as a dues paying member or listed as an associate member is essentially a charter member?
FYI--- the reason we worded the bylaws in this manner is so that the founding families would always have control (If they wanted it) of the organization they founded and supported over the years.
According to Wikipedia any member of the original organization is considered a charter member-- no discerning between the statuses. Webster and Britannica say about the same.
Last year one of the newer members wanted to know when this would change--- the club president told him "when I die" Another long time board member told him "if you are not happy with how things are then leave....you knew how it was when you joined" Thus a line was drawn.
Also, I happen to be the one former associate member who now holds office----
I see nothing wrong with allowing the kids (like me) to be elected to continue on as parents and grandparents before them have done. (with the given that they represent the will of the organization as a whole---which is fact as they are as a diverse a group as can be found amongst our hunters)
I am asking for opinions on this though---- right now there is a group of what I can only refer to as sore heads (two of whom hold office) who argue that the kids are not eligible to serve (Coincidentally cutting theirs out too) The root of their argument leads to the fact that their current voting block is all newer guys and some of these new guys want to get rid of the old order. I don't believe they will succeed but I am tired of arguing over semantics. I think the organization as a whole has set precedent twice allowing only the kids and their parents & grandparents opportunity to serve. I may be too close to this though ( I came real close to asking one of the more belligerent fellows this afternoon if he was that lacking in intellect or did he just like stirring the old compost pile)(that is cleaned up a bit by the way)
I'm open and asking for opinions here.........