[Durham INC] [INC-Board] Re: By-law changes (two versions)

[John Schelp]

This new inserted text could allow high-priced law firms to bring straw "neighborhood" groups to X meetings in a row (to support the firm's project) and then challenge legitimate NAs from voting.

Lots of discomfort here. On many levels.

~John


> As an officer of INC, and a representative
> on Tuscaloosa
> Lakewood, I’d like to better understand why this
> provision is needed.  I know when
> I heard this idea first, but was never clear what brought
> this on?   Colin used
> the example of urban chickens as an issue that could have
> turned out
> differently.  I have a personal opinion that a different
> real issue before INC
> prompted this.  I’d like to be wrong about my
> assumption.   I’d like to know
> what the truthful motivation for this proposal is.  I’m
> not trying to air dirty
> laundry over the listserv.  I want to know why this idea
> was not vetted through
> the Bylaws committee process.  There is a cloud over this
> proposal that should be lifted.   
> 
> Myers Sugg 

> As you all know, I hold the
> INC's President-Elect position this year, and by
> operation of bylaws, I will
> become the President next year.  In addition, Tom
> Miller and I were tasked
> with revising and updating the bylaws of the INC all year,
> partly to cover the
> current operations of the organization, and partly to allow
> for the adoption of
> the non-profit charter and status that I worked to secure
> in late 2008. 
> Though the bylaws revision committee was ostensibly me and
> Tom, it was
> spearheaded by Tom, and the product he submitted to the
> board in July was
> mostly his.  At the August board meeting, those
> present discussed the
> tendered bylaws, and made two changes - there was a
> grammatical error in the tendered
> draft, and the section at issue was added.  The added
> section reads: 
> 
> Voting:  In order for an INC
> member delegate or alternate
> delegate to be eligible to vote on a pending
> resolution at the current
> monthly meeting, that delegate or alternate must have
> attended at least
> one of the last X_blank_X monthly meetings and attended an
> INC meeting where
> the pending-resolution matter was debated or
> substantially discussed by
> the INC membership. The only exception to this requirement
> is newly joined INC
> member neighborhoods or associations, which were not paid
> members of INC within
> the prior two calendar years. INC records shall be used to
> determine
> eligibility. 
> 
> 
> 
> This was debated at the meeting, then further discussed
> over email.  The
> board could not agree on the threshold for meetings, so I
> inserted it as a
> blank (X blank X in the text), so that it would
> require discussion at
> the meeting.  As you all are also aware, as it was
> announced when the
> discussion was had at the August meeting, the vote on the
> minutes is in
> October, giving two full months for discussion and
> questions, as well as a
> resolution of the blank.  The opinions on the board
> ranged from 1 in 3, to
> 1 in 5, to 3 in 9, to simply an attendance at "an INC
> meeting where the
> pending-resolution was debated or discussed"
> (equivalent to converting the
> blank to a space "one of the last monthly
> meetings").  All
> agreed that the neighborhoods should be present at the
> discussion, so that they
> are at least voting with full information - that being the
> fundamental purpose
> of the INC.  These changed were published on the
> website in advance of the
> general meeting, and the location on the web was announced
> so that
> neighborhoods could access it.
> 
> 
> 
> Simply, the goal is to prevent the use of non-active
> neighborhoods to further
> an agenda, since INC cannot police the credentials of the
> neighborhoods. 
> Indeed, many other local organizations have rules that are
> analogous to this,
> such as the People's Alliance which prevents voting at
> the candidate
> endorsement meeting by recent Alliance members.  This
> prevents abuse by
> candidates who attempt to "stack the deck" by
> bringing in outsiders
> and swamping the organization at the last minute. 
> Here, the same can
> happen.  Without this rule, it would have been
> feasible for an
> organization to activate several fallow neighborhoods and
> vote to deny Urban
> Chickens at the last second.  That didn't happen,
> but the stakes can get
> higher, and we cannot ensure that new arrivals to Durham
> and the INC will be as
> scrupulous as those here now.
> 
> 
> 
> There remains plenty of time to debate these points as the
> vote isn't until
> October.  Indeed, the bylaws as written cannot be
> enacted without such
> discussion, intended for September, since a remaining blank
> in the bylaws would
> be nonsensical. 
> 
> 
> 
> -Colin 


> folks,
> 
> I agree that delegates of member neighborhoods should be
> able to vote on any
> issue at any meeting for which they show up.
> 
> It would be helpful if the person(s) who modified/posted
> the second version of
> the by-law changes on the INC website could explain why
> their text differed
> from the hard-copy that was distributed at the August
> meeting.
> 
> have a good weekend,
> 
> John

> > 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