We as the Hive and we as the leadership have been trying to figure out how to handle this for a long time now, and it’s only been in the past few months that the leadership feels like we have a viable proposal. We have discussed this at length in the board meetings, and have finally settled on something. As said by Lorin, we haven’t had strife recently, so this really is the best time to be debating changing a central, contentious policy.
Currently, our Bylaws say that the only reason we may suspend a member is for non-payment of dues - clause 1 of the Suspension section is very clear on that. It gives one and only one reason for a suspension. To expel a (not in arrears) member, we must get over fifty per cent of the Members (this is around 35 right now) to even cast a vote. We’ve had difficulty doing this in the past for even non-contentious things. On top of that, over 75% of votes cast must be to expel. This worked fine when the Hive was a smaller organization, but won’t work for a larger Hive. The final text of this amendment probably won’t be until two weeks before the Annual Meeting. Ian is going to have electronic voting set up for that election, so, again, this thread is just for discussion. I’ll probably not change the actual wording on GitHub until we have more of a consensus as to the desired outcome.
I would be fine making it so that for expulsions, the majority of the Directors in office is needed - this means if there’s a vacancy or a no-show, still three votes are needed. For suspensions, however, a quorum should suffice. Because we do not define a quorum of Directors, Ohio law specifies it as more than 50% of the positions available, so it is always at least three for us. This way, if a 72-hour cooling-off period isn’t enough time to get all of the Board together, then a subset of the Board can determine that a longer suspension is warranted until the full Board can handle it. That change will be a small one, and I’ll likely make it here in the next day or two - I’ll be sure to post when I have done so.
I’ll answer three other points with a little bit of philosophizing. As for having the Officers and the Wardens able to cast votes, this is a bad idea. Wardens are appointed to take care of their wards. Their duties, as solely Wardens, do not and should not involve politicking. They are caretakers and educators. The Officers likewise are involved with running the Hive’s daily affairs. It is the job of Board to steer the Hive, and that includes handling problem members. Should they take the advice of Officers and Wardens? Yes. It would be ideal to have a completely separate Board, Officers, and Wardens, but that would be 16 people, and we don’t have enough interest. We can define separate roles for them now, and, in the future, with consistent sufficient interest, consider another change to the Bylaws to not allow Directors to be Officers, but that is premature at this time. However, we’re laying the groundwork to allow the Hive to grow. Each role handles a different aspect, and, as of now, we need one person to fulfil multiple roles, but as that is no longer needed, the roles will already be separated.
Finally, I’ll touch on the full membership vote. I agree with Dustin, Brad, and Kevin. In a larger organization, not everyone will know everyone else, and won’t feel comfortable voting to suspend or expel someone they don’t know, and, so, the problem member will continue to have free reign. I don’t think that even appealing the decision to the membership as a whole is a good idea, for the same reasons. That’s asking a lot of people who just want to make things and have a space to do so. If we elect “bad” Officers and Directors, I personally do not believe there’s any way to write the Bylaws to stop them from tanking the Hive.