Opinions needed for deer club policy issues

[passin through]

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.

Side notes:
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.........

[Goose]

Not sure if I get it all but here are my thoughts...... The original members should have their say and be in the position to make sure that happens. With that being said its also good to have the "next generation" be there for the torch hand off.
Like I said, I might not be getting it all but I think the elders should have their say as well as the younger generation. Can it be equal? Then the decisions be voted on by everyone?
 

[JPH]

Tough situation. I do not envy you, but here is my take.

Associate members at the time the club was formed clearly fit the accepted definition of a charter member in the English language. This is backed up with precedent. Seems to be cut and dried.

That being said, you may also wish to argue that not only are the definition of charter membership and past practices on your side, but the intent of the founders was to maintain family control. Of course if nobody wrote that down, it can be tough to prove.

One thing is clear, if your club is to survive, a change in the by-laws is inevitable. Even those who were associates at the time of founding will be gone someday. They will have to let the new blood in or dissolve the club.

Good luck.

[passin through]

Goose & JPH-- I think you got it all (that I put in anyway)  I totally agree the elders should have the say  and then the younger guys.  That in fact is how we do it... As I said I am the youngest on the board right now and I usually keep very quiet except when giving reports or reporting for the secretary treasurer when he misses a meeting (I'm kinda his guy Friday since he's over 60 and I'm still in my 30's...just more mobile I guess)  The only reason the 2 remaining elders were not on the board until recently was that they did not want the position or the headache.  That is in fact how I got elected before them , they turned down the nomination.  The last elections they were not given that option per se and niether were the kids....every body eligible was nominated and voting called for before they had a chance to think. (it kinda reminded me of an old boss of mine asking all of us daylaborer types if we knew how to run a backhoe..."yessir says I"  "take this mexican backhoe and clean out all these drainage ditches" he said as he handed me the shovel.  Our new mebers got nominated and elected in much the same manner...volunteering for something that turned into something else[:D])
Just FYI to Gooses question about getting it all though---The way our board works is it decides on options for policy for the club and then the club as a whole votes on what they want to do.  In certain circumstances the president, treasurer and the VP will make an executive decision if circumstances demand it like there is not enough time to call a board meeting ect.  Also the 12 man board will do the same if it is just something like dues going up due to a lease hike.  (no voting really needed you just have to decide how much you have to pay and divide it equally amongst the families)

 I agree with JPH that eventually we will have to change the bylaws in order to survive....probably within the next ten years just due to natural attrition. 

 The biggest problem is that it (this issue) keeps coming back up even though its been defined in both general club meetings and in board meetings and precedents set.  Stubbornness and resentment combined with not a little jealousy seems to be the root of this.  It's kinda like the old saying about the grass being greener....somebody always seems to think they can do it better and when stymied or proven wrong they tend to stir the pot to cause whatever problems they can.  Whisper campaigns, blocking essential business votes with pork barrel stuff, ect..

 Thank you very much for your input on this and I would welcome anybody else to throw in 2 cents.