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

[John Schelp]

Again, we have reservations about the new text (added later) that would prevent member neighborhoods from voting on an issue based upon the attendance record of the member neighborhood’s delegates. 

We've been sending delegates to INC meetings and will Tuesday. As Kelly mentioned, we had a full discussion of the proposed changes at our last meeting. 

Folks, please read the message below. Tom's right, the INC needs to increase participation, not limit it. 

best,
John

****

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