Disclaimer: We do not aim at capturing all birds in one shot this time and as a matter of fact, due to the limitation of timing, we cannot.
章程修改建议案见于
http://www.ustcaf.org/en/news/latest-news/120-bylaws-am-proposed
Question:
The change from
201 No one is to hold the Chairperson position for two consecutive terms.
to
202 No one is to be elected as the chairperson consecutively and no one is
203 to be elected as the chairperson more than once during the same GB term.
appears to have further limited the term of chairperson. Is it necessary to prevent a chairperson to work for two consecutive terms if that could be more effective?
Response:
If a GB's Chairperson's term has been shortened due to resignation or dismissal, I do not see reasons such a person shall be elected again in the immediately next election within GB for a Chairperson.
If there is a new GB, the new GB shall be able to elect their new Chairperson among them. The past practice is not to have anyone holding the Chairperson position consecutively across GB's term, and we have not changed that.
I want to point out one theoretically possible scenario, though, in which a Chairperson resigns before his/her term naturally ends, then at the convention of the new GB, s/he may run for Chairperson again. Bylaws 2003 did not prevent this from happening, the current revision proposal does not, either. It will be the ultimate responsibility of GB to choose the best Chairperson at the time, Bylaws are mostly a framework of principles and a set of rules regulating common situations.
Question:
The following change is innocuous, but the clarification from
251 k. GB may appoint advisors for USTCAF..
to
252 k. GB may decide to appoint advisors, upon nomination from the Chairperson
253 or two GB directors.
254 Such advisors may participate in GB meetings, monitor email
255 communications, audit financial reports and relevant documents, and
256 participate in discussions, but do not have a voting right.
Appears to have the unintentional effect to codify restricting access to GB records to only the few if none selected by current GB. Past practice is all former GB directors are automatically eligible to participate in and monitoring of GB discussions. It is desirable that any GB member or otherwise advisor as appointed following above procedure, if following by rules to be set forth in Bylaw and maintain necessary confidentiality requirement when applicable (In extreme case, the member/advisor may need to sign a NDA. Any disclosure of information obtained should be preapproved by current GB or AF/GB may reserve to rights suing for damage as maximum allowed by law.), he or she should have access to by not limit to any past and current GB discussions, memo, meeting minutes, voting records, membership records and financial records. Transparency and freedom of information is the best way to earn and maintain trust of members and friends.
Response:
We do not intend to block any former GB members or AF members from accessing the current GB's discussions. Currently, we approve requests for access from AF members after verifying their memberships. It is reasonable to assume that former GB members, on average, care more about AF's business, so, at appropriate time, it would be beneficial to better spell out a set of rules/structures for smoother communications within the current GB, between the current GB and former GB members, and between the current GB and AF members. Much work needs to be done and we cannot get all done at once now.
Back to the so-called "codify restriction" issue, we only explicitly outline the appointment of advisors, but we did not say anything about past GB members yet. In fact, there is no place in Bylaws 2003 mentioning former GB members except that GB members from past two terms cannot receive awards from AF. Amendments to Bylaws on better engaging former GB members is possible and we will be open to future discussions.
Question:
375 For donation records in which there are multiple natural persons, USTCAF
376 shall allocate the whole donation to the person whose email was provided in
377 the donation form unless the donors provided instructions, in writing, on the
378 allocation of donation among donors.
- Suggest we should allocate the amount equally among the donors by default, unless the donor specifies the allocation. Considering many of these cases are couples both from USTC, equal allocation should be the best way by default.
Response:
As of now, the donation form allows one email only. It is in-operable for evenly allocating the donation amount to all natural persons involved in a donation if there is only one email address attached to this donation record. There are further complications if a same person is involved in multiple but different groups of donors.
If GB shall contact, through emails, for other donors' emails, then such email(s) can equally be the one asking donors to specify the allocation scheme they desire. I mean, given the same amount of back-and-forth email communications between GB and donors, why don't GB simply ask for donors choice on allocation? In the future, if the donation form shall be revised to allow matching between persons and emails, then an allocation percentage can also be customized by donors at the time of filling the form. It will take time to get that done, though.
Question:
402 The GB is authorized to terminate a lifetime membership if the GB have made
403 best effort attempts in vain to establish contacts with this person.
- Lifetime membership shouldn't be revocable. Also, GB shouldn't have the rights to revoke any membership as long as his/her dues are paid, otherwise it could be a serious problem under certain situations :) And, membership not only means voting rights.
How about change this to "The GB is authorized to exclude a member into quorum calculation if the GB have made best effort attempts in vain to establish contacts with this person."? Similar to US elections require you to register before your name can show on the voter list, but your citizenship won't be revoked if you keep silent.
Response:
GB2010 debated the concept of "membership in hibernation status". I was told that according to relevant Delaware laws, there seems not be such a category of membership-in-hibernation (or similar concept such as on-hold) to exist. I agree with you that the purpose of that particular clause (terminate memberships due to loss of contact) was for the calculation of quorum and related operational purposes. So, we did provide a clause to unconditionally reinstate membership as long as the person is back into contact with GB and GB can verify the identify and intention (to reinstate the membership). This is what GB decided to go with, but it does not mean we neglect the issue you raised. We are striking a balance between law-abiding and operational feasibility/reasonability.
Question:
作为一个曾在欧洲生活多年的科大人，我很诧异地看到章程中有多处条款特别强调“美国”或者甚至仅适用于“美国”。我想这些条款是美国以外的校友所无法接受的，也是不利于基金会的长期发展的。我个人认为基金会应当是全世界所有科大人的组织，尽管大部分海外校友确实生活在美国、而且校友会的成立确实由旅美校友发起。以下是相关的具体条款和我的修改建议：
USTC and researchers in USA."，建议将“researchers in USA"改为"abroad researchers"或"researchers outside USTC".
第73行：“... and alumni in USA and elsewhere..."，建议去掉“in USA and elsewhere"。
第109, 110, 112, 115, 117, 122行：“in (the) USA and other countries"，
建议去掉所有"(the) USA and"。
最后，我认为应当新增一章，将基金会的历史记录下来，包括1995年的
发起经过和参与人员名单、以及之后的简要发展历程，以感谢那些为基
金会作出重要贡献的校友们。
Response:
USTCAF的历史和创建人员名单见于： http://www.ustcaf.org/en/about-us/history。它的内容会有填充，比如添加向过去奉献过的志愿者们致敬的内容。但这些不是理事会眼前的急务。我的个人意见是这些内容本身不必出现在Bylaws里面。
关于您提及的关于美国和海外的用字的修正，理事会内部讨论过。鉴于在Bylaws 2003里面的第五部分（Article V）里有对于USTCAF的Nature和Mission的修正的严格限制，因此我们将先划分清楚如何修正USTCAF的Nature和Mission，然后再根据实际状况和现实需要，对这两部分的内容进行调整。这些动作由于时间限制，将只能在2011年进行。眼前的问题是要尽快解除在Nov到Feb之间必须举办选举的限制。
Question:
I am not clear about the following statement in the new propsal:
"All the then-sitting GB members, including those who resign after the beginning of ballot casting for the failed election, shall be excluded from 339 the election committee as well as the candidacy in the re-election;"
Why those resigned GB members are excluded from re-election? Does that mean they cannot be the candidates for the re-election? Or do they need to apply again to be candidates? Will re-election have the same candidates as failed-election?
Response:
想法是这样的：
（1） 发生这种重选举对于USTCAF来说会是一个重大事件。 部分原因可能将会是当任的理事会没能做得更好。因此，当任的理事会成员将被排除在重选举的候选人当中。
（2） 在这种特别发起的选举中，除了当任的理事会成员不能成为候选人以外，对于别的候选人的资格要求和普通选举是一样的。由此也可看出，就目前的Ｂｙｌａｗｓ的规定，每一次选举的候选人都需要（自我或他人的）提名，都要有本人的候选宣言。重选举的候选人和失败选举的候选人不一定相同，但也不是完全不允许重叠。要看每一个人的资格认定。
（３） 在排除当任的理事会成员的候选资格的时候，如有辞职的情况存在，是以事后来看辞职是否发生在失败选举开始投票的那一天为准的。可能有别的日子（比如失败选举的Date of Record）也可以用作此目的。但我想，在一个选举开始的那一天（尚未知是否能达到选举人数的时候）却要辞职的，其个人对于此前该任理事会的工作表现是不能脱钩的。因此，不应有候选资格。
（４）在重选举的时候，任何有资格投票的实际参与投票的会员将组成Ｑｕｏｒｕｍ。获得多数票的候选人组成理事会。这样组成的理事会应享有正常选出的理事会同样的权利，同时还可以有一项新权利：即选择适当时候举办选举并藉此终止自身的任期。这一句话其实在目前的实践中没什么用途。但在重选举中当选的理事会有可能会想要这一项权利来转换到正常选举的月份，如果Bylaws里面确定使用固定的选举日期的话。
Question
I noticed the current GB term has been extended up to 13 months – however, it may still be very limited. I wish each GB could either serve two years for one election and/or in each election, only 50% of the current GB member being re-elected. This will avoid a lot of new orientation.
Response
http://www.satellitedishcanada.com/win/can_lifestyleframe.htmlQuestion：
Response:
Question:
Response:
2003，距离二月底（选举窗口的关闭）只有五十多天了。又根据Bylaws
2003，章程修改案在理事会通过以后还需要50天的等待期才能生效。这就是我们预定一月上旬投票的原因。但是即使本案通过了，也不意味着新章程就不再需要进一步的修正了。可能随之而来的就是新的一轮章程讨论。这一次由于时间较充分，可能会有多次的的公布给会员供反馈的机会。
Question:
Response:
The exact wording can be adjusted such as "the candidates shall include, if any, his or her past services to USTC or its alumni in the candidacy statement" to make it more succinct.
Lastly, in my opinion, if a candidate who would not be elected if he or she properly discloses his or her past service record to USTC or USTC alumni, then probably he or she shall not be elected. After all, given all the (voting) members fully informed, their votes rule.
Follow-Up from member：
The problem is actually not that if a candidate disclose one's association with other organization and not being elected. It is actually that this requirement makes other alumni think that AF will purge whoever has connection with other alumni organizations and therefore will not even enter the election at all.
Response:
How about this version:
Question:
Response:
如果说按照2003章程可以保证每年的二月选举结束的话，按照新方案同样也可以保证每年的九月或十月选举结束。当然，一年之中哪个月份最适合AF理事会的换届和新的GB热身入场，值得讨论。选在一、二月之间有它的合理性。但本届理事会所面临的实实在在的章程条款和实践的矛盾必须解套。如果有什么着眼长远的方案同时又能*及时*解除当前面临的章程和实践之间的矛盾，还请见教。
Question:
Response:
关于Candidates shall not have official Capacity and/or obligation to represent USTC这一条：原有的2003章程里禁止科大在校学生和时任雇员参选AFGB，目的是为了保持AF的独立性和防止利益冲突。那么，如果有参选人是在 预期的AFGB任期里面 将会代表科大出面参与处理AF在科大的（某些）项目的情况，那么根据AF的章程的Nature和Mission两章，这里是有利益和/或身份冲突的疑问的。
关于候选人应该在候选宣言里披露个人过往的服务科大、服务科大校友的经历（如果有此类经历的话）这一条：考虑到广大会员社群遍布全球，时空相隔的现实，这一信息显然会帮助会员更好的认识和理解参选人的资历和经历。在众多会员获取充分的信息之后，他们票选出来的GB应该足以在章程的规范下践行AF的使命了。
当然，USTCAF目前是也应该保持是一个面向全体会员的开放组织，应该努力向它的会员，科大校友和关心科大的朋友们争取支持。而要做到做好这些，一些有过领导经历和/或公共服务的经历的候选人将会在（投票）会员们的眼中相对突出，他们也是推展USTCAF的工作所需要的人力资源和资产。
最后，以上这两条候选人资格要求，就我的理解，并未与AF的Nature和Mission冲突。相反，他们是Nature和Mission的精神的延伸和对AF的Nature和Mission的加强。
您所提及的关于USTCAF-relevant matters，USTC Alumni Communities，USTC Alumni Organizations在实践本条文的时候的如何定义和认定的问题非常好。原文确实有失之于啰嗦的毛病。我想在文字上改成如下文所示可能就足够准确简练了。请指正。
The candidates are encouraged to include his or her past leadership and/or public service experience, if applicable, in the candidacy statement.