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

[Andrew Sugg]

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




From: durhamincboard at googlegroups.com [mailto:durhamincboard at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin Crossman
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:10 AM
To: John Schelp
Cc: inc-list at rtpnet.org; board at durham-inc.org
Subject: [INC-Board] Re: [Durham INC] By-law changes (two versions)

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
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 6:44 PM, John Schelp <bwatu at yahoo.com<mailto:bwatu at yahoo.com>> wrote:
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<mailto:list at durham-inc.org>
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DurhamINCBoard" group.
To post to this group, send email to durhamincboard at googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to durhamincboard+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/durhamincboard?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090921/738055e2/attachment-0001.htm>