On 2 February 2010 11:01, Amgine
<amgine.saewyc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 03:22 -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> He insists on references to the Canada Business Corporations Act (CBCA)
> even though it has nothing to do with what we are trying to do.
According to the lawyer I referenced, if it's published by the
government on their website, it is the current rule.
If we wish to wait until some other law is in force, then we should
write for that law and wait until it is in force.
The reason for indemnification, et al.: It's easier / faster to get
approval with the least changes which need to be understood / justified
on the part of the government official who will review the application.
The directors must be empowered to make decisions for the non-profit
corporation; this will include the ability to take on debt. (Of course
you could create a convoluted democratic process within the by-laws
restricting how/when this authority may be used. I expect that will be
less simple to write, be understood, or be approved. Philosophically it
of course begs the question of "Why have directors?")
> Even seemingly simple provisions require specific considerations: Why
> should the chair receive a second vote in the case of a tie; it is more
> usual to say that the motion fails.
That's another option, and perfectly viable. Why don't you go ahead and
implement that? I would dispute it is 'more usual', but perhaps that's
merely my n of one.
My impression was this group intended to become incorporated. Perhaps,
to avoid remaining in 'wishful thinking' territory, the group should
decide by what date they wish to be incorporated.