Apportioning Delegates (from By Laws Committee) : LUSENET : PNWRC Web Development : One Thread

The By-Laws Committee will be working on the question of reapportionment. The Council feels that as we grow as a Council our delegate size should not. We have set a deadline for the Annual Meeting in August 2001 to complete this task. We as a committee are working for you and solicit any suggestions or ideas concerning this question. If you have questions or suggestions for the By-Laws Committee address them to this web site and they will be forwarded to the committee.


Larry Harmon Chairman By-Laws Committee

-- Clark Gilman (, May 22, 2000


Simply change the count from "active membership" to "members in good standing" That will eliminate alot of delegates especially from locals that fluctuate in membership alot. It's a simple change that does what you want to accomplish without major modifications to the formula.

-- Ed Triezenberg (, May 26, 2000.

If the council truthfully wants to stay at same size,you don`t need to take the amount of delegates away from locals, just leave the numbers the same. Small locals represent geographical areas as well as the different crafts. These locals need to be represented.If any locals have to lose numbers of delegates,caps should be imposed on large locals portions therafter.I BELIEVE WE SHOULD LEAVE IT ALONE because we have to be accountable.When you take away rank and file we all lose. As we grow funds grow too,there is housing availible. In the event of reapportioning all locals need to have alternate delegates with power and vote when regular delegates are unable to attend.

-- anonymously answered, August 26, 2000

I would like to see a minimum number of delegates per local of 2 - as it now is - with a reasonable cap on the total number of delegates allowed per local. Although we may cap the total number of delegates, we do not neccessarily need to cap the number of votes per local. For example should the number of delegates be capped at 12, but a local had 1500 members, they could retain all 15 votes. The additional 3 votes could be held by a caucus and cast on a separate ballot. That would only work for secret ballots of course. Just fodder for thought.

-- Dennis Daneke (, November 15, 2000.

Although I have not done the math, I like Ed Triezenberg's solution. Change the basis for the number of delegates from "active members" to "members in good standing". Reality says that even in good economic times Local Unions have members in arrears. Some locals may lose delegates based on this criteria others may not. Financial Secretaries and active local members may find some motivation here ... want more delegates? - Organize !

-- Skywalker (, January 21, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ