AMC By-Law changes - why I'm voting "NO"

[Stan]

By now AMC members may have heard about changes that are prosposed to AMC's by-laws, some of which are intended to bring them into compliance with state law. Some... but not all, from what I can tell.

Instead of a vote on each issue, and each issue should stand on its own merit, AMC wants a blanket vote on all the changes. I'm against this apporach as a matter of principle. It asks members to rubber stamp what the ivory tower thinks is best. Just like Congress!

Members may decide that even those matters which should be changed for better legal compliance, could be changed differently.

I'm voting "NO" to register my opposition to this approach, which I find arrogant. Even the publicly held stocks which I own in modest amounts provide for separate votes on each issue.

 

[John H Swanson]

All or Nothing

With this approach, it seems to me that they will not succeed. There are many proposed changes that are good and smart. But this is not the case for all of the changes. I have only 2 that I disagree with, but because my disagreement is strong, I will vote no.

 

[Amicus]

Even the publicly held stocks which I own in modest amounts provide for separate votes on each issue.

Correct, and that is likely due to the SEC's "unbundling" rule, which it adopted a decade or so ago because some public companies had gotten into the habit of balling up into a single vote a bunch of distinct "shark repellent" measures, such as a staggered board and a provision limiting special stockholder meetings.

Of course, the SEC has no jurisdiction over the AMC (which is a good thing, IMO), and I note this only as evidence that "bundling," as I gather the AMC has done here (our membership has lapsed, so I haven't seen this notice), is recognized as unfair.

 

[jniehof]

I understand, and agree with, the rationale for a total rewrite--the changes are too far-reaching and, in some cases, interdependent, for a line-by-line. However, the fact that the final form is the first form the membership is seeing--that there's no chance to comment on specifics or intention to revise based on membership input--means I am also voting no. I'm not going to vote for a non-term-limited employee (executive director) to have a full voting seat on a term-limited board, so I don't even have to look at anything else. That's just not what a membership-driven organization does in my world.

(The blind doubling of signature requirements on membership petitions also annoys me. If they haven't been abused, why raise the signature requirement? Increasing membership is insufficient rationale, IMO.)