Q&A Regarding 2011 Bylaws Amendments 章程修改案问答 - 章程修改案问答 Page 3

Article Index


I  am very concerned about the term :
"The candidate shall include, if any, his or her past services to the USTC alumni communities and associations with other USTC alumni organizations in his or her candidacy statement."
What is the purpose of this requirement?

In my opinion, this has nothing to do with AF's mission. If a alumni doesn't want to share this information, but he/she is a valid lifetime member of AF, is he/she eligiable to be elected as a board member of AF? I don't see any reason why he/she should not be. I believe this is not a requirement in Bylaws 2003.

The negative result of this term is that it feels like that AF wants to purge those members who are lifetime members of AF but also serve other alumni organizations. I simply want to point out that this is a possible implication and people might intepret it very differently than your initial intention.

I feel that if a candidate feels like to release that information, it is perfectly fine. If he/she doesn't want to do so, it is perfectly fine, too. This should not be a requirement listed in the bylaws for candidacy.  I strongly recommend to remove this from the new bylaws.


Thanks for your comments on this clause.
Candidacy statement is to face all (voting) members and it shall summarize one candidate's essential experience with USTC and his/her basic expectation/intention of his role if elected to the GB.  So one's past service experience for USTC or its alumni would be one strong indicator of his/her readiness and ability to serve on AF's GB.

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:

My opinion on this is that it should not be a REQUIREMENT for candidacy. Most of candidates will state their various connection with USTC and alumni community any way. I am perfectly fine with that. But I don't see any particular reason that a candidate has to disclose his or her association with other alumni organization. This requirement could easily be linked to recent dispute between AF and IF.

I think an acceptable rephrase of this would be:
"Candidate is encouraged to share with all members his or her past leadership experience, if any."

If a candidate is a USTC alumni, a lifetime (permanent) member of AF and is willing to serve the GB, he or she is eligible to enter the election. Some leadership experience would help him or her to win more votes from the alumni and possibly the election but it is not an essential requirement for candidacy.

A simple example is the presidential candidacy requirements in the US: 1. one has to be a US citizen, 2. one has to be naturally born in the US, 3. one has to be 18 years or older. Of course, we know that anyone who only matches these three requirements has no chance of being elected as a president of the US. One has to achieve much much more to convince people to vote for him or her. But a more general elgigibility ensures that vast majority of the US citizen do share the right to elect and to be elected. Consider if there's a requirement that a president candidate has to have a net wealth of $1million or more (all president candidates of the US in the last couple of elections had more wealth than that, of course, not even mention the amount of money their campaigns collected), that would be a severe violation of the fundament constitutional rights of 90%+ of the US citizens.

I believe one important philosophy of the law (or the bylaws of an organiztion) should be general enough to allow all members share the same level of right of election.

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.


USTCAF is and shall remain an open organization facing all its members and will seek/solicit support from all USTC alumni and friends of USTC/USTCAF.

How about this version:
Candidates are encouraged to include his or her past leadership and/or public service experience, if applicable, in the candidacy statement.


Whatever changes to the by-law should keep a long term stability for AF in mind, instead of a short term convenience. It really bothers me that the GB term is going to be floated in the new by-law. Imagining a new GB will start at different time of each year, while most of AF's operations are in relatively fixed time table. It is also not practical to GBs who are volunteers.  In addition, this new by-law should start to apply to next term of GB to avoid a conflict of interest.





some wordings, as following, will cause confusion with the AF mission statement,  and should be excluded from the by-law:
The candidate shall not hold official capacity and/or bear official obligation to represent USTC in handling USTCAF-relevant matters during the expected GB term;
The candidate shall include, if any, his or her past services to the USTC alumni communities and associations with other USTC alumni organizations in his or her candidacy statement.
Anyway,  who has the right to explain and define “USTCAF-relevant matters”, “USTC alumni communities”, and “Associations or organizations”



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。

purge)掉 某些身为AF的终身会员但又在其它的校友组织任职的人士(it feels like that AF wants to purge those members who are lifetime members of AF but also serve other alumni organizations. 此问题的原文见http://www.ustcaf.org/about-us/governance/bylaws/121-bylaws-am-qanda?lang=en,接近页底)。我的相应答复也可见于该公开网页。基本想法是,如果该有意参选者(们)在正确的披露了自己为科大校方、科大校友的服务经历以后,没能获得当选的票数,那么可能他(们)或她(们)这一次没能获得多数投票会员的认同。 After all, given all the (voting) members fully informed, their votes rule.



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 candidate shall not, on behalf of entities other than USTCAF, handle or expect to handle USTCAF's matters during the expected GB term.
The candidates are encouraged to include his or her past leadership and/or public service experience
, if applicable, in the candidacy statement.


The GB2010 gives less than a week for our general members to review during holiday season, which is not respectful for general members.


非常抱歉。本届理事会在10月初成型,首要任务是进入角色,并努力接续几个亟待完成的项目,例如GW2008的最后12名学生,教师奖的学生奖和核准,GB2010的公告的草拟和讨论,以及应急处理一些公共论坛上发生的争论和GB2010内部的讨论。虽然早在10月底11月初即有想法要着手推动章程的修改,但各项事务头绪较多,直到12月底才拟出章程修改方案的第一版公开稿 并 在GB2010内部启动的讨论。后历经约一个月,改了很多次稿,在12月下旬,我提出当时那个版本可以主动供GB以外的会员审阅了,时隔多日,GB2010没有提出异议,除了几处琐碎的细节文字的商榷。然后就是目前在AF的官网公布的修改建议方案的PDF文件了。【注:GB2010讨论过程中全部的邮件和变动中的各个版本的文档都在GB2010的邮件组里有存档。会员可以向GB2010提出要求,查看一路的讨论内容和文档内容的变化。】