RE: [ga] No Members?

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:kent@songbird.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 2:18 PM
> 
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 12:41:40PM -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> > > California non-profits MAY have members, but they do not have to.
> > 
> > That's right. The reason for the continuing debate is that, 
> under some
> > sections of California corporations law, corporations with 
> statutory members
> > are defined by whether members have certain rights -- such 
> as whether the
> > "members" can elect Directors, for example. But the 
> creation of statutory
> > members under the California law is dealt with in several 
> different sections
> > of the Code, some of which are seemingly contradictory, so 
> it's a nuanced
> > question that we're unlikely to answer here.
> 
> It is not nuanced at all.  The text is actually quite clear.

There you go acting like a lawyer again ...
The section you quote doesn't apply.

-- 
IANAL - I Am Not A Lawyer. Before taking action on anything I say, you are
encouraged to seek legal advice. 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html