[OldNorth] illegal bylaw changes

[Dan Quickert]

What I see in this:

(1) The agenda for the meeting of 4/24/03 specifies "By-laws discussion", 
and lists two subtopics. It does not, however, specify the content of those 
two items; nor does it unambiguously state that there would be a *vote* 
taken to actually change the bylaws. There is therefore no possibility of 
this agenda conforming to the bylaws relevant to procedures for amendment.

(2) The agenda was not sent out 30 days prior to the meeting. The agenda 
has typically been sent out only several days prior to meetings. This also 
does not meet technical requirements of the bylaw-changing rules.

(3) It is not clear from the minutes of the meeting whether the intent was 
to *actually change* the bylaws via that vote; or whether it  was rather a 
vote to place those changes before the members.

(4) I conclude that if the vote merely signified the intent to place those 
bylaws before the membership (or before the board in a subsequent meeting), 
then all is well. However, if indeed the vote was to institute a change in 
the bylaws, then John is correct and that action was illegal.

I also note that deadline has passed for putting any bylaws changes to vote 
by the members (or Board) at either the June 21st Garden Party or June 26th 
Board meeting. There is not sufficient time for the requisite 30 day 
notice.

I would suggest that the next meetings be used for discussion and proposal 
of any planned bylaws changes, and motions to place them before the 
members; and that the vote to institute those changes be made at a 
subsequent meeting so that there is ample time for people to consider them 
and for due notice. This would satisfy both the letter and the spirit of 
the Association bylaws.

I further suggest that any discussion of bylaws amendments be done in an 
egalitarian manner, with all participants - Board and public - able to 
propose and to participate fully in a *discussion*. I say this to 
differentiate from the format that we see at, for example, City Council 
meetings -- where the Council hears testimony, members of the public each 
get only one statement, then the Council debates and votes. That format 
seems to me inappropriate for a neighborhood association that was formed to 
foster communication and cooperation. Let's let *everybody* be full 
partners in this.

I look forward to working with the neighborhood in the future to help 
prevent this kind of snafu. I think we can do that with adequate planning 
and with more emphasis on communication than haste.

Dan Quickert