[Durham INC] By law changes at the next meeting

[Tom Miller]

Fellow INC Delegates:

 

At several INC meetings during the spring and summer, including the meeting
last month, I reported to you that the bylaw amendments that Colin and I
were working on held no major changes other than a proposal to include a
conflict-of-interest provision.  At last month's meeting I passed out copies
of the proposed changes and a resolution to adopt them.  I also informed you
that the changes had been posted on the web.

 

What I did not know at the time that I spoke to you was that the version of
the proposed by-laws available via the web was not the same as the hard copy
I passed around at the August meeting.  The web version contains a proposed
rule which would allow or prevent member neighborhoods the right to vote on
issues based upon the attendance of delegates.  Had I known that this
provision had been added to the proposed revision of the by-laws, I would
have brought it to your attention.

 

At our meeting next week, Watts-Hillandale's delegates will argue strongly
against any version of the bylaws which contains a provision which would
prevent a member neighborhood from voting on an issue based upon the
attendance record of the member neighborhood's delegates.  INC is an
organization of neighborhoods, not individuals.  Once a neighborhood
qualifies for membership and its delegates are credentialed, that
neighborhood should be allowed to vote on an issue that it cares about.  If
the member neighborhood isn't as organized as other member neighborhoods and
can't get a delegate to every meeting or even to a series of meetings, it
should not be penalized on the occasion when it does send a delegate -
especially if the neighborhood has sent the delegate to address an issue of
importance to that neighborhood.  Consistent and inconsistent participation
by member neighborhoods is a barometer of the value of INC.  The greater the
value, the more likely a neighborhood will expend the money and the
organizational energy necessary to join and attend.  No by-law stick will
coerce member neighborhoods into participation if the value is not there.

 

Instead of this very dubious approach to improve participation, I suggest
that we become better at enforcing the core rules that have been in the
bylaws from the beginning.  Once upon a time, a neighborhood organization
who wished to join had to fill out an application form attesting to its
qualification for membership using the criteria established in the by-laws.
The organization had to submit a letter credentialing its delegates and when
those delegates changed, a new letter was required.  In those years, it was
not unusual for 60 -80 neighborhood representatives to attend each meeting.
The organization respected itself and thereby earned the respect of its
members.  In saying this I do not wish to suggest that the organization
today does not respect itself or that it is unworthy of respect.  The
organizational effort then was extraordinary and perhaps unsustainable over
the long term.  The ongoing effort by our officers to keep the organization
vital, including even this review of the by-laws, is proof of their
commitment and worthy of our respect, but I believe that we should try
harder to attract participation before we consider any measure to coerce it.
And, if nothing works and only coercion is left, then I suggest that INC
should dissolve. 

 

Tom Miller

WH-HNA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090917/eefdb9a0/attachment-0003.htm>