First - ack, you are absolutely right about the mis-numbering. I suspect this is a Word (our laywer)/Libre Office (me) snafu. I’ve requested a PDF of the final version directly from our lawyer and will repost when I get it.
As for the confusion you raise - thank you for bringing this up. We should change the language to avoid any confusion and consider steps to simplify.
I’ll state/confirm the intent and maybe we can figure out ways to make it clearer.
First - yes, you are right - these provisions are intended to make legal space for our bi-national relationship.
Second - level of membership refers to the number of members in good standing. If 800 members pay dues to the US entity and 200 members pay dues via the Mexico Coop, then the mexico coop gets 20%. If there were more coop/membership organizations that we chose to have a special arrangement with, then we would continue dividing proportionally by the number of members.
In terms of the mechanism… you have to be a member to be nominated, and if Mexico has 20% of the votes, then we must end up with 20% of our board members being members who are members via the Mexico coop.
So, if we go into an election with 20% allocated to Mexico, we would have to have at least 5 candidates from Mexico. After tallying all the votes, we would first give seats to the highest vote getters. However, if that meant not meeting the 5 people from Mexico rule, we could have to bump up the Mexican candidates until we met the minimum.
Having explained all of this, I’m intrigued by your suggestion of separate classes of board members that everyone votes on. I think it’s worth discussing. What do others think?