[Durham INC] By law changes at the next meeting
Kelly Jarrett
kjj1 at duke.edu
Fri Sep 18 11:50:38 EDT 2009
To clarify:
I was not advocating for electronic voting. I'm fine with a requirement
that delegates be present to vote. And I'm fine with some kind of
mechanism that allows for electronic votes when a matter is especially
urgent and arises at the last minute.
What I'm opposing is a move such as the one proposed in the on-line
version of the by-laws I saw that prohibits a delegate from voting if
they've missed X number of meetings. Given that we can all so easily see
what's on the agenda for meetings and review minutes, we can determine
when there are items that are relevant to us and that we really want to
vote on are on the agenda, and there should be no penalty for delegates
not attending meetings that their association deems not essential to
their interests.
TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
> 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
>> 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/20090918/7152b17c/attachment-0002.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list