Bylaws Workshop Results -Comparative Format

[Matthew]

ByLaws Workshop Results -Comparative Format

Our first attempt to update our bylaws was by a specially appointed membership Bylaws committee that worked for a number of weeks on their task. For various reasons, the membership decided not to approve the hard work put forth by this committee. By an overwhelming vote at the June general meeting, the attending membership approved updating the bylaws through a series of participatory workshops, open to the membership and moderated by an outside professional who was knowledgeable in the bylaws process. On two Saturdays, July 12 and Aug 2, Hal Korff and his wife Lynn, moderated these workshops. We followed the national Project Management Institute's guide for creating bylaws. The results are posted here for the review by the membership in a PDF (format) download.

The main task of the workshops was to provide all interested Members with the opportunity to provide input to update our bylaws to reflect the Association's current needs. The update work is presented for approval by the Members as a whole, because it is a much simpler process than attempting to update the bylaws on a piecemeal basis. Because the Bylaws are a living document, there is a provision for additional revisions by future amendments.

The format presented here compares oru original bylaws wording with the proposed updated wording, and includes an explanation for such revision. Every attempt was made to simplify our bylaws' wording, eliminating redundancy, clarifying and defining.

Please note that an organization is regulated by three items: its Articles of Incorporation, its Bylaws, and its Policies. (Example: requiring a membership fee is a "bylaws" item, the amount of the membership fee is a "policy" item) Policy matters were not addressed in these bylaws workshops.

A vote was taken at our October 2nd General Meeting, and the updated Bylaws were accepted by an overwhelming vote. Additional items or modifications that the membership may wish to incorporate into our bylaws may be made by individual amendment(s) at any future time.

Download a PDF, comparative-format, of the proposed updated bylaws.

[Wonkette]

As a member of the GCNA bylaws committee, I take exception to your characterization of the work this committee did to revise our current bylaws. i.e. “Our first attempt to update our bylaws, by a specially appointed membership Bylaws committee, was unsuccessful.”

The fact is, the committee, made up of four members of the association, appointed by then president Diane Brennan, to make recommendations to the membership regarding bylaws revisions. We worked many long hours and did a tremendous amount of research to arrive at the final bylaws recommendations.

Our work was finished in the allotted time and the proposed revisions were presented to the membership both online and at a general meeting. The membership felt that they were not sufficiently prepared to vote on the revisions so a series a workshops were set up to allow discussion of the proposed revisions.

I feel the need to point this out as the current vice-president, Matt Conn seems intent on trivializing and minimizing the many hours of work the committee dedicated to this volunteer project and I for one, do not appreciate my work being dismissed out of hand in such a cavalier way. Especially when the work we did was essentially thrown out as if it never existed.

I do encourage people to come to the Oct. meeting to speak to their issues as it will be an interesting opportunity to see Roberts Rules of Order at work. I am sure there are many areas of the bylaws that members will consider amending and you will have your opportunity to make motions to amend the proposal. Not at a later date but at the October meeting when they will be presented as is prescribed by Robert’s Rules.

The fact is, the process was compromised and diminished and is yet another example of the inability of the current board of the GCNA to work with those who do not see things their way. Opposing viewpoints are not welcome in this, our neighborhood association.

I will attempt to send this to the Coronado News in response to Matt’s posting but since it is a moderated list, it may not ever get to you, so I will post this to the forum as well.
Regards,
Michelle Steinberg

[NO LEFT TURN]

Interesting that some of the more controversial subjects, the ones that received the most vile comments, in the first proposals now appear to be incorporated in the second proposal from the workshop. And then the first proposal was characterized as unsuccessful??????

I would like to point out also that Both Michelle and I were subjected to abusive comments at three public general meeting for requesting that the "right to inspection" be enforced, the exact same wording that we used in our letter of request now appears as a part of the proposed by-laws. We were "run off" the board, through false accusations in public general meeting, for exposing potentially costly conflict of interest and collusion between committee members and certain board members. Now this appears to be worthy of a large section of the currently proposed by-laws? For those if you who are interested in reading why Michelle and I take exception to how we are characterized in these public forums, are truly interested in factual information that is documented, and why it is strange that those who "violated these very standards of conduct" appear now to be taking credit for solution please take a few minutes and read the accurate information that we have compiled and presented here http://tinyurl.com/ratero-1

The removal of the word "cause" from the section on removing board members will certainly facilitate the "gang like behavior" in future attempts "run" the organization. Removal for no cause.......outside of a gang atmosphere I have never heard of such a policy.

I agree with Michelle, how was the first proposal so unsucessful? Especially since it was never allowed to be discussed if I recall.

It is my hope that someday the CNA will be used for a platform of less personal mean spirited policy towards certain members.

Why did not the "committee in waiting", just step forward with these revisions when asked for volunteers, or when 90% of them were serving on the board of directors of over a year. Other than a spin to appear to "rescue the by-laws" from those as Michelle mentioned placed so much hard work into it, and again make us out to be the cause of "there goes the neighborhood".

I guess I will never be able to understand the of use of the neighborhood organization for that kind of personal enjoyment.

I do know that it will probable never end.....

Wayne