[Durham INC] By law changes at the next meeting

[TheOcean1 at aol.com]

I hope to have more time this afternoon to respond to this more fully, but  
since I wasn't pressing for any of the changes, nor do I handle the  
website, etc, I have no idea how this glitch occurred. To jump to the conclusion  
that INC was trying to pull a fast one, is both unfair and silly. 
Criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't that be  
extended to volunteer organizations?

I tend to agree with Kelly &  Tom, that neighborhoods can be tuned into INC 
electronically, and perhaps  attendance in person shouldn't be mandated to 
include that vote in the tally.  Earlier this year an emergency need for 
neighborhood's opinion created a  situation where INC asked all neighborhoods 
to discuss via their listservs, and  send their conclusion ASAP. Within two 
days we had the unanimous consensus of  like two dozen neighborhoods, and the 
issue was thoroughly covered in my  neighborhood in that method.
 
So on one hand Tom & Kelly contend that attendance isn't required for  INC 
to be effective, yet on the other, the "value of INC" can be determined by  
how many show up. That's nice, it allows you to salute any vote you agree 
with,  and participated in electronically, while you can deem any others 
invalid and  worthless just by staying home and watching TV.
 
Again, this will be looked into, but taking cheap shots at INC isn't  
required.
 
Bill Anderson
INC Board
 
In a message dated 9/18/2009 8:23:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
kjj1 at duke.edu writes:

Tom and INC delegates--

I agree with the position you take  below: I think that the appointed 
delegates of member neighborhoods should be  able to vote on any issue at any 
meeting for which they show up. This is  especially true now, when meeting 
agendas and minutes are available  electronically, important issues and upcoming 
votes are announced and  discussed on the listserv, and it is so easy for 
neighborhoods to keep  informed about INC activities and to determine which 
are crucial to their  interests. 

OWDNA spent a great deal of time at our last meeting  discussing INC's 
proposed by-law changes, and while I'm speaking as an  individual and not as a 
representative of OWDNA, I will say there was strong  agreement with the 
position I've outlined above.

I will also say that  many of us were quite disturbed about the 2 different 
versions of the by-laws  in circulation. Our INC delegate attended the INC 
meeting and came to the  OWDNA meeting prepared to discuss the version of 
the proposed by-laws  distributed at the meeting. I and other members had 
reviewed a version of  proposed changes  provided in a link in an INC email. We 
were pretty  surprised to find we were discussing two different versions of 
the proposed  changes to INC by-laws. I found it even more disturbing that 
the electronic  version contained the proposed change Tom raised below. 

I believe that  so long as a neighborhood is a member in good standing and 
has sent a  credentialed delegate, it should be allowed to vote. 
Neighborhood associations  that join INC have the right to decide for themselves which 
issues on the INC  agenda are priorities for them. Tom is exactly right that 
"participation by member  neighborhoods is a barometer of the value of INC."

I would encourage INC to  address why there were two versions of proposed 
by-laws in circulation and to  insure that all neighborhoods discussed and 
approved the same version of  changes. It might be that the vote itself will 
have to be postponed and  delegates will all need to return to their 
associations to seek approval for  the same version, and return next month to cast 
votes.

Just  MHO,

Kelly Jarrett

Tom Miller wrote:  
 
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
 
____________________________________


_______________________________________________

Durham INC Mailing List

_list at durham-inc.org_ (mailto:list at durham-inc.org) 

_http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html_ (http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html) 

  



_______________________________________________
Durham  INC Mailing  List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090918/9ac8e599/attachment-0001.htm>