Proposed update to Warden Addendum

At the meeting I proposed a change in the Warden Addendum, which incorporates 3 major changes:

  • Fix any spelling errors I found
  • Remove references to Head Warden (we never used it)
  • Add Educational Warden

Basically, the educational warden will serve as a facilitator for educational activities such as:

  • Co-ordinating with the class host a time to have the class
  • Handling the EventBrite functions if the class requires it.
  • Handling all social media posts (such as Twitter, the blog, Facebook, &c.) to get word out about the class
  • Any other actions needing to be undertaken to host a class

This will hopefully lower the bar for hosting a class, allowing us to have more classes!

This is a link for the difference between the two files: Please note that there is a decent amount of whitespace changes.

Technically, this is a pull request for proposed-warden-update@88af365 into master.

Greg, addendum changes fall under bylaw changes as they are part of the bylaws. Which requires a special meeting as described in the bylaws and Ohio state law.

I like the ideas of these changes except the event Brite. That has to do with not knowing how event Brite handles the money aspect, which I feel an elected officer/board should be handling. With some clarification in that aspect I may have a change of opinion.

My understanding was that the reason it was created as an addendum was so that it could be modified by a simple vote of the membership rather than requiring a full special meeting.

That being said I would agree with removing the reference to eventbrite, but for different reasons. I feel we should use more generic language, i.e “Handle the use of event management/ticket sales services as necessary”, rather than calling out a particular third-party service which may go away or otherwise become impractical for our purposes without warning.

  • Ian B.

Good catch re: eventbrite, Daniel.

There is no reason to tie to one vendor. Amen to generic ticket management language. Good idea on solution, Ian.

I was under the impression that the Warden stuff was implemented as an addendum in order to allow it to be changed easier than the bylaws. Is there ample precedent out there for us to reference and get an answer to something like this? It’s a “generic” enough question that affects enough organizations that I’m sure it’s been hashed out already.


Just wanted to clarify things for everyone, because this stuff is complicated and boring, :stuck_out_tongue: so a lot of people don’t know these things… I colour coded things because some words are similar! YAY! :smiley:

The definition of an addendum as it pertains to our Bylaws: “In other documents, most importantly in legal contracts, an addendum is an additional document not included in the main part of the contract.” There is also a difference between an amendment and an addendum, in case anyone has any questions about that, and how that pertains to our bylaws under the Amendment section. An amendment makes a change to a document and is part of the document. An addendum makes an addition to a document, and is a separate entity.

So it actually isn’t part of the bylaws. In fact, this is precisely why we chose to do these items as addenda, so they could be changed more easily. They contain information that needs to be more flexible than the contents of the bylaws, which should be stable and take concerted effort to change.

Lastly, special meetings only require 72 hours of notice to the general membership, as stated by our bylaws.

It is correct that bylaw changes require a special meeting with a 2/3 affirmative vote of quorum to pass. However, as this doesn’t apply to this vote, overall, we should be good to go :slight_smile:

Bylaw says 10 days to 60 day notice for special meeting. This conversation also took place a year or 2 ago, I believe Ian Wilson was involved, I emailed him for his stance as I believe he is the one who said that but memory of 2 years ago is fuzzy so… he has the best knowledge on this out of anyone here I believe.

Correction: Item #1 under the Notice of Meetings in the bylaws specify 10 to 60 days notice for Annual meetings. However Item #4 under the Notice of Meetings sections specifies 72 hours notice for Special Meetings.

That being said, more notice is always preferable.

  • Ian B.

After rereading the bylaws, Ian you are correct. My mistake, I misread that section. Thank you.

If you look at the actual changes provided in the link instead of my summary, I didn’t specify any particular vendor. I just used it specifically in the summary because it’s what we use now and people are familiar with it.

Again, the actual changes may be viewed at

Ah, I see. I am fine with the wording in the document itself.

  • Ian B.

Just a reminder to vote on this - you can vote online. We need to reach quorum to pass this, and it would really help the Hive in its educational goals.

Once again, my initial post is a summary. The full change set may be viewed at

Forgive my denseness, but is there a specific place you want us to vote?

Yes. You can vote on this thread, just like any other vote!

I vote yes on this, if my vote still counts

I vote yest.

Bump again.

I vote yes

Matt Malarik

I vote yes because the original was clearly quite flawed, but have some questions:

  1. Why is the COO not entitled to 50% membership/$1membership compensation if the COO is also serving as a warden? (Lines 44-45) Is this intended to prevent a war
  2. Why are wardens not able to spend their own budget and seek direct reimursement from treasurer vs. COO buys everything (Lines 31-33, 37-40) ? Is this a check/balances approach?
  3. Comment: Line25/26 is kind of meh as wardens don’t have direct access to funds - the COO is still in their way.




If I had more hands I’d give your vote 4 thumbs up :slight_smile: