Section 1: Preamble
|
Agree: 93%
|
Agree with modification: 4%
|
Disagree: 1%
|
|
Comments:
-
I would call this section “Definitions and Operations”, rather than “Preamble.”
-
Useful to have greater clarity around the relationship between STLHE and the Council. Thank you for the hard work that went into drafting these bylaws.
-
I have difficulty understanding why Fellows of STLHE require a seperate group. Some of us were members of STLHE prior to being recognized through the 3M award. Others are members by default, again though 3M. I am a fellow of a number of societies. In each of these organizations, my responsibilities relate to the Society, not the Fellowship.
|
Section 2: Defining and interpreting bylaws
|
Agree: 100%
|
Agree with modification: 0%
|
Disagree: 0%
|
|
Comments:
|
Section 3: Mission and Aims
|
Agree: 71%
|
Agree with modification: 21%
|
Disagree: 7%
|
|
Comments:
-
Not sure that mission and aims should be a part of the by-laws. What happens if they change or expand? Do the by-laws have to change then for every change in focus or direction? This section is rare to have in the by-laws.
-
See Section 1. But I raise the question, why are these aims restricted to 3M Fellows? Is this a case of elitism? Do I, as a Fellow, have more to contribute than other STLHE members and therefore require a special organization within which to make those contributions?
-
Add: 3.2.8. To support evidence-based research into all aspects of teaching practice and to promote its findings. Rationale: We need to know what works (and does not work) in the classroom. There is very little statistically sound evidence on this issue.”
-
Better than the missions I’m used to seeing when groups create new by-laws. I like the tone of celebration and the emphasis on networking among Canadian Fellows and between Canadian Fellows and educators in other countries.
-
Section 3.2.7: Formulation is asymmetrical with the rest of the section. The others begin with an infinitive formulation, and 3.2.7 should likewise be ” To be a voice in public…”
-
Revise 3.2.6 and 3.2.7 to preserve the parallelism, “To promote…, To celebrate…” etc. i.e. 3.2.7: “To be a voice in …” and 3.2.6 ” . . . to assist in ….” A picky grammatical point.
-
“I think that section 3.1 would be strengthened by removing “”and Supporting Fellows”" since they are included with the term Fellows and by changing the term “”teachers”" to “”educators”".
-
The phrasing of these two goals is different than the previous ones that all begin with the word to followed by a verb. 3.2.6 With the STLHE, assist in the coordination and adjudication of the 3M National Teaching Fellowship and the 3M National Student Fellowship. 3.2.7 Is a voice in public in debates and discussions about postsecondary teachers, their teaching and learning in Higher Education. They could be re-written as follows: 3.2.6 To assist, STLHE, in the coordination and adjudication of the ….. 3.2.7 To participate as a voice in public debates and discussions…. “
-
Don’t like “nurture.” Can’t we find a less soppy word. And article 3.2.7 can’t start with a verb if it is to conform with other items in the list. On the whole, I’d be inclined to omit the aims, as is customary.
|
Section 4: Membership
|
Agree: 82%
|
Agree with modification: 11%
|
Disagree: 7%
|
|
Comments:
-
Unclear what extra benefits supporting Fellows get for the extra membership fee, but doesn’t need to be enumerated in the by-laws.
-
If we are going to have our own private club, then we should pay for that club. However, it appears, and this section seems to acknowledge, that not all Fellows see the need. I, personally, am uncomfortable with the implied elitism of the Council, and the implication that it will be composed of free riders and concerned members. We receive a life membership in STLHE as a part of the 3M award. If STLHE needs additional support, why not simply appeal to 3M Fellows for their direct support of STLHE?
-
I’m not sure about the labels of “Fellows” and “Supporting Fellows.” It seems to me that we could have one label all members who have paid their dues, whether they choose a lifetime membership or pay annually. I worry that discriminating between Fellows and Supporting Fellows might be divisive “STLHE has moved to a calendar year for membership. It seems odd that a consticuency group is not also moving to a calendar year for membership.
-
4.7 suggests in its current Fellow that if you Supporting Fellow fees lapse one year that you can never again be a Supporting Fellow. I doubt that this is the intent. It currently reads: “”Failure of a Sponsoring Fellow to pay dues or membership fees or dues for the current year by June 30 of that year will return their membership to that of a Fellow for that year and all following years.”" By adding at the end of 4.7 ….and all following years until dues are resumed.”
-
On the whole, I dislike this idea of two classes of membership. And why on earth should non-resident members pay their dues in US funds (which entails loss on the exchange for both the member and the organisation)?
-
“As I currently understand, 3M fellows do not pay dues to STLHE ( although some may voluntarily). I would only approve a membership fee if it also requires payment of a membership fee to the larger Society. 3M is a creature of STLHE in conception and practice. It would be not be appropriate to pay fees only to 3M when the council is a constituent group of STLHE ( see preamble).
-
This discussion occurred several years ago as well. The fellows at that time recognized that it was difficult to NOT pay fees to STLHE and then ask for fees paid directly to 3M fellows ( outside STLHE jurisdiction). Should all ‘communities of practice’ within STLHE be able to collect their own fees under their own fee structure. If this were to occur , I would have to remain as ‘a non supporting fellow’ as a matter of conscience. If we can’t get this part correct, we are not really modelling appropriately and I think 3M loses credibility.
|
Section 5: Meetings
|
Agree: 82%
|
Agree with modification: 7%
|
Disagree: 11%
|
|
Comments:
We should probably therefore hold the one AGM to be in compliance.
-
Higher standards for members’ meetings than for STLHE, where only 10% is needed. Why are more supporting fellows than normal fellows needed to call a members’ meetings?
-
This assumes we exist as a separate group. It seems to justify our dinners, but adds structure.
See comments above re: Supporting Fellows and Fellows
-
5.3 Seems unnecessarily awkward.
-
I don’t like the distinction between different classes of membership (based on financial contributions) and in any case think the quorum requirement is too low.
-
This separates 3M into two groups. You need more fellows than you do supporting fellows to do anything. A small minority of fee payers control the fellows group.
|
Section 6: Governance
|
Agree: 86%
|
Agree with modification: 11%
|
Disagree: 4%
|
|
Comments:
6.4—Who appoints the coordinators/co-coordinators? STLHE? 3M Executive? 3M Council?
-
If we exist, this is workable
-
6.2.1 and 6.2.4 require periods at the end of the sentences.
-
“I think this sentence needs the word meetings added at the end and Directors’ having an approstrophe added.
-
6.3.2 “”Chair is responsible for representing the Council at the STLHE Board of Directors.”"”
|
Section 7: Remuneration of executive
|
Agree: 100%
|
Agree with modification: 0%
|
Disagree: 0%
|
|
Comments:
Agreed
|
Section 8: Amending bylaws
|
Agree: 93%
|
Agree with modification: 4%
|
Disagree: 4%
|
|
Comments:
-
8.2—I think Fellows should also have the same ability to initiate changes to by-laws, with the same requirements as supporting fellows.
-
I have no new recommendations for the existing by-laws.
-
If the organization exists and if the bylaws exist, this seems to be a reasonable mens of amending them.
-
“An excellent by laws which will offer tremendous development for our association.
|
