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

[Colin Crossman]

John:

The current bylaws, and the original text submitted by Tom, allow
high-priced law firms to create straw neighborhoods for $25, then vote at
the SAME MEETING. Legitimate neighborhoods have no way to deal with the
surprise.

Is your argument that the amendment isn't strong enough? If that's the case,
then your opposition to it is doubly odd, since the amendment makes it
harder to do this by removing the element of surprise!

All of the rest of the opposition argue that there should be NO attendance
requirement.

Isn't it better that the "high-priced law firm" have a harder time doing
this?

-Colin

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:00 PM, John Schelp <bwatu at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090921/96aafd66/attachment-0001.htm>