There are 4 proposed changes. In all cases, the changes are in bold.

Proposal 1:

Rationale: Modify two articles of the Bylaws to reflect the pervasive use of electronic ballots in GMAG elections.

Change to ARTICLE VII.2-- ELECTION AND TENURE OF THE OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

From:
Ballot. The Vice-Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee shall be elected by mail ballot as hereinafter provided.

To:
Ballot. The Vice-Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and Members-at-Large of the Executive Committee shall be elected by mail and/or electronic ballot as hereinafter provided.

Proposal 2. 

Change to ARTICLE VII.3 -- ELECTION AND TENURE OF THE OFFICERS AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS

From:
The Secretary/Treasurer shall poll the Topical Group membership by mail ballot, stating a closing date at least three weeks prior to the Regular Meeting. Ballots shall be returned to and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer or his or her designate. Election shall be decided by a plurality of those voting. If there is a tie, the Executive Committee shall decide the election, with the Chair voting only in the case of a tie among the other Executive Committee members. The Secretary/Treasurer shall communicate the results of the election to the Chair at least two weeks prior to the Regular Meeting and shall publish the results in the following issue of the newsletter of the Topical Group.

To:
The Secretary/Treasurer shall poll the Topical Group membership by mail and/or electronic ballot, stating a closing date at least three weeks prior to the Regular Meeting. Ballots shall be returned to and counted by the Secretary/Treasurer or his or her designate. Election shall be decided by a plurality of those voting. If there is a tie, the Executive Committee shall decide the election, with the Chair voting only in the case of a tie among the other Executive Committee members. The Secretary/Treasurer shall communicate the results of the election to the Chair at least two weeks prior to the Regular Meeting and shall publish the results in the following issue of the newsletter of the Topical Group.

Proposal 3:

Rationale: Revise the wording of the Bylaws to reflect the current practice and duties of the secretary/treasures and chair, i.e. that the chair is responsible for the GMAG newsletter.

Change to ARTICLE XI – NEWSLETTER

From:
The newsletter of the Topical Group shall be managed and edited by the Secretary/Treasurer, who shall oversee its preparation and distribution. There shall be at least two issues per year; the frequency and timing of these issues shall be determined by the Secretary/Treasurer in consultation with the Chair. The Executive Committee may direct the Secretary/Treasurer to distribute complimentary copies of the newsletter to specified non-members of the Topical Group. The Editor shall be assisted in policy decisions by the Chair, as well as by the Executive Committee as a whole.

To:
The newsletter of the Topical Group shall be managed and edited by the Chair, who shall oversee its preparation and distribution. There shall be at least two issues per year; the frequency and timing of these issues shall be determined by the Chair in consultation with the Executive Committee. The Editor shall be assisted in policy decisions by the Executive Committee as a whole.

Proposal 4:

Rationale: At the request of the APS Council, meeting units have been asked to include the following section on Unit policy statements.

1. Enabling Bylaws – Authorization and guidelines for APS Unit Statements are provided in Article XVI, Section D of the APS Bylaws.
2. Criteria for Proposed Statements – The following criteria shall be used to determine the appropriateness of a proposed Unit Statement and serve as a proposal template.
   1. Relevance: Why should the Unit make this statement and how is it specifically relevant to the interest and expertise of the Unit members?
   2. Urgency: Why does the statement need to be issued now?
   3. Background: What technical background is there to support the statement?
   4. Context: Who are the potential proponents and critics of the statement and what have been/are the actions of other scientific organizations?
   5. Breadth: Is this a statement that would be better served as an APS statement?
   6. Publication: What should the Unit do with the statement?
   7. Endurance: Will the statement have enduring value or is it a temporary position on an issue of specificity?
3. Procedure - The Executive Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and deciding whether or not to advance proposed Unit Statements. It shall also be responsible for statement publication and periodic review to ensure continued relevance.