Monday, January 02, 2006
Proposed Bylaws Revisions - Round 2
READ ALL THE WAY DOWN. THERE ARE LINKS TO PROPOSED CHANGES ALL THE WAY AT THE BOTTOM. SO AGAIN, READ IT OR WAIVE YOUR NOTICE OBJECTIONS.
A message from your friendly Parliamentarian:
In October, we amended the CYD bylaws for clarity, grammar, and other minor changes that have - I hope - created a more accessible document for the membership.
Click here to download the current bylaws
Note on downloading: I recommend you "save" rather than "open" the document and then open it in your regular word processing program.
Please note that the current bylaws document you can download by clicking above will have some numbering discrepancies. These are simply formatting errors that will be corrected once we are done with major revisions and do not affect the substance of the bylaws. Additionally, the version linked to above should no longer contain any of the tracked changes. If it does, it's because I messed up something in word, so please email me to let me know.
Now - on to the business at hand
In accordance with the bylaws, all proposed revisions must be noticed 21 days prior to when they may be taken up for consideration by the body. Our next meeting is on January 28, so we're well within that time constraint. Additionally, there is still time for suggesting revisions. Please email me with specific proposals or concerns by 5pm on Janurary 7. If you would like to discuss the proposed changes, however, you are welcome - and encouraged - to use the comments section here on the blog.
Some preliminary technical information
INTRODUCTION
Please take the time to read the comments included in the edited version linked below - they will alert you to policy questions we either are addressing in the changes or questions we'll need to address in the next round of revisions. The reasons to note the comments are threefold: 1) the comments keep this process transparent; 2) the comments help you to understand what you're reading; 3) the comment advise you of areas where we need everyone's input.
TECHNICAL ADVICE
As you probably already know, the ability of Microsoft Word to screw up just about any document is impressive. This edited version was prepared using Microsoft Word and I cannot guarantee that it will look the same on all versions of Word, nor in other word processing programs. If you have problems viewing the edits, please email me immediately after you trouble-shoot in the following ways:
1. Under "View" in the Toolbar, click on "Markup" - you should be able to see the document either with all the red and blue marks or as it would look if all the changes were adopted (ie: no red and blue marks). Various versions of word and various printers require some finessing to get the document to print out with fancy mark-ups (arrows, strike-outs, etc). I wish luck and will help where I can.
2. To see the comments themselves, go to your toolbar (below the File/Edit/View part), and look for a button that says "Show." It will have a drop-down menu with options. Click-on "Reviewing Pane." You should now have a horizontally split screen that will show each comment below. If you click on one, it will move the text pane to that edit. These comments can also be printed on their own (the advantage to this is that you won't lose any of the edits/comment text due to size restraints on the whole-document form). This will make more sense once you play around with it yourself.
3. Different people have their toolbars set differently. In some cases (most, probably), newer versions of Word should automatically detect that you are looking at a document with edits and your toolbars should give you mark-up options. One of these will be a drop-down menu that offers the following options:
Final Showing Markup
Final
Original Showing Markup
Original
Play around with them accordingly.
And, lastly, this document was sent to you in Word form because converting it to pdf would likely have resulted in losing some of the comments, hampering your ability to navigate the document efficiently and effectively. If you cannot open the Word form or it comes out really, really messed up, I will make a pdf and send it to you. Also, because there are going to now be 8 zillion Word copies out there (all of which will reflect your changes, should you play around with them), the copies which will be officially considered at the Jan. meeting will come from me and this computer only. So bring your own for reference and copies will be available for you as well. Hopefully there won't be much of a difference.
Stay put, we're not done with the prelimiary information yet
Attention all CLUB PRESIDENTS, Interested Persons, Executive Committee Members, Etc:
At the approaching Jan. Executive Board meeting we will take up the second round of Bylaws Revisions. These changes are substantive in nature, unlike in Round 1 - so your attention and input are VITAL.
To that end, if you cannot download the proposed changes, you need to EMAIL ME IMMEDIATELY (parliamentarian at youngdems dot org) for an electronic redlined copy and a mock up of what the changes would look like if adopted.
Some things to keep in mind:
1.) The magic of microsoft means that some of the (auto-formatted) numbering is wrong. We are aware of this and it isn't final numbering. It does not substantively affect the bylaws, so don't lose sleep over it.
2.) This is the substantive edits point of the project. There have been frequent requests for input over the past year. So none of these proposals or issues should be a surprise to you unless you're a new club. If you are and would like additional background on these changes or the last changes or any of the policies, please email me and we'll get you up to date. Also - the proposals in the linked-to document are just that - PROPOSALS. They do not limit what we may do or what we can do. If you have alternative language, please email it to me by Jan. 7 at 5pm if you would like it noticed for consideration at the Jan. meeting. Also, at the Jan. meeting, any proposal properly noticed may be amended prior to action if done in accordance with applicable rules.
3.) The redlined copy may have both red and blue lines. Don't mind the different colors. We're just being patriotic.
4.) This is a very, very difficult process that is going to involve perhaps a dedicated hour of your time and a lot of your understanding. We're dealing with the meatier issues this time, so be ready to buckle down and give this some thought. It will continue to be a hoot, however.
5.) When we attack this at the meeting, I will do my best to present a coherent plan of attack to divide the changes into sections (much as CCD we did last time). I will respectfully ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt on the placement of commas, periods, general structuring, and the like.
Thanks for sticking it out through this long list message. Email or phone with any questions. Though all comments will, of course, be in order at the meeting, if you have sizable issues, the debate will be all the better if you can submit comments PRIOR TO January 28, 2005, in writing, via email. Not required, but it's the polite thing to do. Help raise the bar, etc.
Again, if you can't download the bylaws here, email me at parliamentarian at youngdems dot org.
Click here to download the Proposed Bylaws Revisions - Round 2.
***IMPORTANT: Please check this site a few more times between now and January 8 when any other proposed language will be posted. Club leaders are expected to discuss the changes with their members and ensure that their members have appropriate notice of the upcoming meeting and possible action.***
UPDATES:
1/3/06: A new version of the Round 2 document is available above. Change effects Article IV, Section 1(d)(3).
1/7/06: Additional proposal to alter the structure of the Board; amends Officer job titles and duties. Click here to download proposed Article V language.
Additional proposal to alter the credentialing process. Click here to download.
A message from your friendly Parliamentarian:
In October, we amended the CYD bylaws for clarity, grammar, and other minor changes that have - I hope - created a more accessible document for the membership.
Click here to download the current bylaws
Note on downloading: I recommend you "save" rather than "open" the document and then open it in your regular word processing program.
Please note that the current bylaws document you can download by clicking above will have some numbering discrepancies. These are simply formatting errors that will be corrected once we are done with major revisions and do not affect the substance of the bylaws. Additionally, the version linked to above should no longer contain any of the tracked changes. If it does, it's because I messed up something in word, so please email me to let me know.
Now - on to the business at hand
In accordance with the bylaws, all proposed revisions must be noticed 21 days prior to when they may be taken up for consideration by the body. Our next meeting is on January 28, so we're well within that time constraint. Additionally, there is still time for suggesting revisions. Please email me with specific proposals or concerns by 5pm on Janurary 7. If you would like to discuss the proposed changes, however, you are welcome - and encouraged - to use the comments section here on the blog.
Some preliminary technical information
INTRODUCTION
Please take the time to read the comments included in the edited version linked below - they will alert you to policy questions we either are addressing in the changes or questions we'll need to address in the next round of revisions. The reasons to note the comments are threefold: 1) the comments keep this process transparent; 2) the comments help you to understand what you're reading; 3) the comment advise you of areas where we need everyone's input.
TECHNICAL ADVICE
As you probably already know, the ability of Microsoft Word to screw up just about any document is impressive. This edited version was prepared using Microsoft Word and I cannot guarantee that it will look the same on all versions of Word, nor in other word processing programs. If you have problems viewing the edits, please email me immediately after you trouble-shoot in the following ways:
1. Under "View" in the Toolbar, click on "Markup" - you should be able to see the document either with all the red and blue marks or as it would look if all the changes were adopted (ie: no red and blue marks). Various versions of word and various printers require some finessing to get the document to print out with fancy mark-ups (arrows, strike-outs, etc). I wish luck and will help where I can.
2. To see the comments themselves, go to your toolbar (below the File/Edit/View part), and look for a button that says "Show." It will have a drop-down menu with options. Click-on "Reviewing Pane." You should now have a horizontally split screen that will show each comment below. If you click on one, it will move the text pane to that edit. These comments can also be printed on their own (the advantage to this is that you won't lose any of the edits/comment text due to size restraints on the whole-document form). This will make more sense once you play around with it yourself.
3. Different people have their toolbars set differently. In some cases (most, probably), newer versions of Word should automatically detect that you are looking at a document with edits and your toolbars should give you mark-up options. One of these will be a drop-down menu that offers the following options:
Final Showing Markup
Final
Original Showing Markup
Original
Play around with them accordingly.
And, lastly, this document was sent to you in Word form because converting it to pdf would likely have resulted in losing some of the comments, hampering your ability to navigate the document efficiently and effectively. If you cannot open the Word form or it comes out really, really messed up, I will make a pdf and send it to you. Also, because there are going to now be 8 zillion Word copies out there (all of which will reflect your changes, should you play around with them), the copies which will be officially considered at the Jan. meeting will come from me and this computer only. So bring your own for reference and copies will be available for you as well. Hopefully there won't be much of a difference.
Stay put, we're not done with the prelimiary information yet
Attention all CLUB PRESIDENTS, Interested Persons, Executive Committee Members, Etc:
At the approaching Jan. Executive Board meeting we will take up the second round of Bylaws Revisions. These changes are substantive in nature, unlike in Round 1 - so your attention and input are VITAL.
To that end, if you cannot download the proposed changes, you need to EMAIL ME IMMEDIATELY (parliamentarian at youngdems dot org) for an electronic redlined copy and a mock up of what the changes would look like if adopted.
Some things to keep in mind:
1.) The magic of microsoft means that some of the (auto-formatted) numbering is wrong. We are aware of this and it isn't final numbering. It does not substantively affect the bylaws, so don't lose sleep over it.
2.) This is the substantive edits point of the project. There have been frequent requests for input over the past year. So none of these proposals or issues should be a surprise to you unless you're a new club. If you are and would like additional background on these changes or the last changes or any of the policies, please email me and we'll get you up to date. Also - the proposals in the linked-to document are just that - PROPOSALS. They do not limit what we may do or what we can do. If you have alternative language, please email it to me by Jan. 7 at 5pm if you would like it noticed for consideration at the Jan. meeting. Also, at the Jan. meeting, any proposal properly noticed may be amended prior to action if done in accordance with applicable rules.
3.) The redlined copy may have both red and blue lines. Don't mind the different colors. We're just being patriotic.
4.) This is a very, very difficult process that is going to involve perhaps a dedicated hour of your time and a lot of your understanding. We're dealing with the meatier issues this time, so be ready to buckle down and give this some thought. It will continue to be a hoot, however.
5.) When we attack this at the meeting, I will do my best to present a coherent plan of attack to divide the changes into sections (much as CCD we did last time). I will respectfully ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt on the placement of commas, periods, general structuring, and the like.
Thanks for sticking it out through this long list message. Email or phone with any questions. Though all comments will, of course, be in order at the meeting, if you have sizable issues, the debate will be all the better if you can submit comments PRIOR TO January 28, 2005, in writing, via email. Not required, but it's the polite thing to do. Help raise the bar, etc.
Again, if you can't download the bylaws here, email me at parliamentarian at youngdems dot org.
Click here to download the Proposed Bylaws Revisions - Round 2.
***IMPORTANT: Please check this site a few more times between now and January 8 when any other proposed language will be posted. Club leaders are expected to discuss the changes with their members and ensure that their members have appropriate notice of the upcoming meeting and possible action.***
UPDATES:
1/3/06: A new version of the Round 2 document is available above. Change effects Article IV, Section 1(d)(3).
1/7/06: Additional proposal to alter the structure of the Board; amends Officer job titles and duties. Click here to download proposed Article V language.
Additional proposal to alter the credentialing process. Click here to download.
Comments:
<< Home
I am pretty cool with Christiana's recommendations, minus that we should keep addresses as a requirement for charters.
Also, I have rewrote Article VII, Section 1 (g) and have wrote a whole new varification of charter procedure that I am proposing. You can see that here: www.mlyd.org/proposedcharterchange.doc
Let me know what you think. Thanks,
~Eddie Kirby
MLYD President
CHS Provisional President
Also, I have rewrote Article VII, Section 1 (g) and have wrote a whole new varification of charter procedure that I am proposing. You can see that here: www.mlyd.org/proposedcharterchange.doc
Let me know what you think. Thanks,
~Eddie Kirby
MLYD President
CHS Provisional President
I think that most of Christiana's recommendations are worth while, but I am going to take issue with about 7 items listed in the proposals, and I will elaborate. The rest of her proposals are pretty straight-forward. Thanks for all your hard work Christiana!
I'll try to go in order:
Article II, re: expansion to 7 regions. Though it's been a while, I can tell you from my experience as CYD President that organizing officers in a statewide volunteer organization is difficult. Adding one more to the mix makes a top-heavy organization even heavier. While I realize that LA is uniquely different than the other counties, we should also keep in mind that part of the regional groupings are based on common roads and media markets - keeping like-minded people together who can easily access each other for meetings and political activism. And while I realize that Southern OC is not conveniently located to north LA county, let's keep in mind that there are much bigger CYD regions that manage the task just fine. Also: most regions have vice-chairs taken from different areas to address issues of geography. Adding a 7th region would only add a layer of bureaucracy.
Article IV, section 1: in the reference that states that a credentials chair should be “designated by the President.” This is a good, I would only recommend that the bylaws identify who credentials shall default to in the event that the President doesn’t name a person by that date. No sense in holding up the chartering process because one person (the President) didn’t adhere to a January date. My recommendation would be to add in something along the lines of “…by January 15. If the President does not designate by this day, duties shall fall to the State [insert officer here] for the duration of the process.” From my experience, I’ve learned that, unless you provide consequences, people are not always motivated to follow voluntary deadlines.
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong, specifically stating that it takes 50 members to gain an extra vote after the first 100, as opposed to the current standard which only calls for 25 members. I realize that there have been events recently that make this provision a tempting one. But this is not a new issue, it has always been prevalent and we have always survived it. My main problem with this proposal is that it expressly discourages growth, reduces potential chartering revenue for the state organization, and dilutes the voice of legitimately large clubs at convention. This might sound like a good idea, but it’s bad policy.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes. I’ll preface this section as having little to do with my current vote on the CYD board. My opinion on this issue is based on my time as State Vice President and State President from 1998-2001. Basically, officers are the lifeline of this organization. They hold the institutional memory of the organization and that, more than anything, justifies the weight they carry in making decisions that affect the statewide group. I realize that some people will use the “spirit of Democracy” case in that we should be granting “power to the people” and such. But let’s get real here folks, that’s not a practical way to run an organization. Most of the rank-and-file CYD clubs do not choose to get involved in the daily business of CYD – even when we bend over backwards to include them. That’s not a bad thing, that’s just the way it is. As such, we have to accept that reality and work through it. And if the concern here is that officer votes weigh too heavily in elections – the answer is simple: grow the organization more! The more you grow the group, the more clubs you have, and the more votes there are at convention. That is unless you make it too hard for 100+ clubs to get additional votes! ;)
Article VII: chartering. One of the provisions states that, when calling through lists, the committee may opt to call an additional 20% of a clubs membership if the initial 20% of calls did not yield a 10% verification rate. My thoughts on this are that, if the club puts together that poorly of a chartering packet, we shouldn’t penalize the credentials committee by making them volunteer more hours to fix the charter. We should strike this item on the sole grounds of it being too nice to a club that was too dumb to put together a good packet lol.
Article IX, section 2: Somewhere in here there is a mention to allow clubs to vote proportionally at exec meetings. In other words, a big club could cast the same votes they cast at convention at exec meetings. This is a VERY BAD idea for several reasons; it will assure that small clubs will rarely have a voice in CYD, and ultimately push out the small clubs if they feel that they have no voice in CYD; it could make a few big clubs in the state the only real decision makers on a regular basis in the organization – and while this may be understandable to an extent at convention – it has irresponsible implications for organizational decision making during the normal calendar year. It is a recipe for disaster and hurts our small clubs the most, as they are the ones who have the hardest time traveling to Exec meetings to begin with because they have a smaller pool of people to draw from when it comes time to send a representative.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes. Not necessary and holds potential danger: if the committee chairs did get votes, even if it’s just on Exec, you can bank on the President only appointing people that will vote the same way he/she does. So in effect it gives the President a handful of more votes without any checks or balances in place. We’ve survived this long without committee chairs as voters, we can continue surviving without it.
I'll try to go in order:
Article II, re: expansion to 7 regions. Though it's been a while, I can tell you from my experience as CYD President that organizing officers in a statewide volunteer organization is difficult. Adding one more to the mix makes a top-heavy organization even heavier. While I realize that LA is uniquely different than the other counties, we should also keep in mind that part of the regional groupings are based on common roads and media markets - keeping like-minded people together who can easily access each other for meetings and political activism. And while I realize that Southern OC is not conveniently located to north LA county, let's keep in mind that there are much bigger CYD regions that manage the task just fine. Also: most regions have vice-chairs taken from different areas to address issues of geography. Adding a 7th region would only add a layer of bureaucracy.
Article IV, section 1: in the reference that states that a credentials chair should be “designated by the President.” This is a good, I would only recommend that the bylaws identify who credentials shall default to in the event that the President doesn’t name a person by that date. No sense in holding up the chartering process because one person (the President) didn’t adhere to a January date. My recommendation would be to add in something along the lines of “…by January 15. If the President does not designate by this day, duties shall fall to the State [insert officer here] for the duration of the process.” From my experience, I’ve learned that, unless you provide consequences, people are not always motivated to follow voluntary deadlines.
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong, specifically stating that it takes 50 members to gain an extra vote after the first 100, as opposed to the current standard which only calls for 25 members. I realize that there have been events recently that make this provision a tempting one. But this is not a new issue, it has always been prevalent and we have always survived it. My main problem with this proposal is that it expressly discourages growth, reduces potential chartering revenue for the state organization, and dilutes the voice of legitimately large clubs at convention. This might sound like a good idea, but it’s bad policy.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes. I’ll preface this section as having little to do with my current vote on the CYD board. My opinion on this issue is based on my time as State Vice President and State President from 1998-2001. Basically, officers are the lifeline of this organization. They hold the institutional memory of the organization and that, more than anything, justifies the weight they carry in making decisions that affect the statewide group. I realize that some people will use the “spirit of Democracy” case in that we should be granting “power to the people” and such. But let’s get real here folks, that’s not a practical way to run an organization. Most of the rank-and-file CYD clubs do not choose to get involved in the daily business of CYD – even when we bend over backwards to include them. That’s not a bad thing, that’s just the way it is. As such, we have to accept that reality and work through it. And if the concern here is that officer votes weigh too heavily in elections – the answer is simple: grow the organization more! The more you grow the group, the more clubs you have, and the more votes there are at convention. That is unless you make it too hard for 100+ clubs to get additional votes! ;)
Article VII: chartering. One of the provisions states that, when calling through lists, the committee may opt to call an additional 20% of a clubs membership if the initial 20% of calls did not yield a 10% verification rate. My thoughts on this are that, if the club puts together that poorly of a chartering packet, we shouldn’t penalize the credentials committee by making them volunteer more hours to fix the charter. We should strike this item on the sole grounds of it being too nice to a club that was too dumb to put together a good packet lol.
Article IX, section 2: Somewhere in here there is a mention to allow clubs to vote proportionally at exec meetings. In other words, a big club could cast the same votes they cast at convention at exec meetings. This is a VERY BAD idea for several reasons; it will assure that small clubs will rarely have a voice in CYD, and ultimately push out the small clubs if they feel that they have no voice in CYD; it could make a few big clubs in the state the only real decision makers on a regular basis in the organization – and while this may be understandable to an extent at convention – it has irresponsible implications for organizational decision making during the normal calendar year. It is a recipe for disaster and hurts our small clubs the most, as they are the ones who have the hardest time traveling to Exec meetings to begin with because they have a smaller pool of people to draw from when it comes time to send a representative.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes. Not necessary and holds potential danger: if the committee chairs did get votes, even if it’s just on Exec, you can bank on the President only appointing people that will vote the same way he/she does. So in effect it gives the President a handful of more votes without any checks or balances in place. We’ve survived this long without committee chairs as voters, we can continue surviving without it.
Also - with regards to colleges submitting chartering materials at the beginning of the academic year: this could create two real problems - one is that it has the potential to create confusion with regards to chartering dates (if officers turn over at the end of the semester, they may wrongly assume that the previous officers did the chartering and not follow-through with it in January). I realize that we want to keep updated lists but that is after all the job of the Secretary and VP of Membership to keep those lists updated. No need to amend the bylaws to save them from their duties!
The other problem it creates is that you could be in a situation, particularly during election years, where a campus club could be 200 people strong during October of an election year, but drop to 30 people the following January. Should members who are no longer active in the club be counted in the convention chartering? I don't think that's fair.
The other problem it creates is that you could be in a situation, particularly during election years, where a campus club could be 200 people strong during October of an election year, but drop to 30 people the following January. Should members who are no longer active in the club be counted in the convention chartering? I don't think that's fair.
I'll use Ed's comments as the jumping off point for my views on the bylaws change as a member of the organization (ie: not speaking in my role as parliamentarian). And note, for the record, that no one should infer or fear that I would be unable to answer their objective questions or render fair rulings with regards to that for which I hold a strong or weak opinion. Consider yourselves properly disclaimed.
In response:
-Article II regional expansion: From a policy standpoint, I think if a region is bustling to the point where it needs to be split, great. There are regions with vast geographic area that aren't bustling and probably don't need to be split (unless you take the view that maybe more people are needed to cover turf and build clubs). So the question is whether you think LA needs its own director and the other regions need one. I also fear the too-many-chiefs-not-enough-indians consequences of increasing board members. Of course, there are also proposals to remove votes from regional directors and other board members - so balance as you will. Personally, I have no passionate views on this proposal if it leads to more hard workers and not more title-seeking space-wasters.
Article IV on naming the credentials chair: It is not a voluntary deadline. It is an absolute deadline mandated by the bylaws. The deadline by which the president must appoint the credentials committee chair is no more voluntary a duty than the mandated duty to elect a board yearly at our state convention. A fall back person may seem like a nice practical touch, but it's needless verbiage. The whole volunteer run organization exists by virtue of officers executing voluntary events - if you want to look at it that way.
Article IV - raising the bar for votes: I agree with Ed. The arms race for votes will always be a danger. Hell, someone could accuse California at a national level for over-promoting itself to maximize representation and electoral college power. On a realistic level: the institutional history here weighs against monkeying around with vote requirements. Contested elections - which I will forever maintain are far healthier than the pat, assumed leadership exchanges normally experienced in CYD and elsewhere - have been historically rare. Will they continue? Perhaps. And again, that'd be great. But there's only so much we can do - and I think the place to beef up security is on our end (credentialing) and not in the vote allocations at the chartering level because it dissuades clubs from chartering or trying to raise their numbers. And if clubs are going to fake 25 members, they can and will fake 50.
Article IV - Officer votes: I agree partly with Ed's comments here. However, I will say that from a getting-sh*t-done standpoint, removing officer votes SOLELY for elections would not hamper the Board's ability to conduct business because E-Board votes remain untouched (or at least that's an option). And policy-wise, that's the reason why SO many more people become individual voters under the E-Board article than during state conventions. On a selfish level, as a Board member, I enjoy having an individual vote. At the same time, as a former non-Board member and someone who has disagreed with board actions and feared in-crowd syndrome at the Board level, I empathize with those who fear too much Board say in their own longevity/anointing of successors. I'm not sure where I stand, personally, on this issue. At the very least, the fact that we're considering it should alert us to institutional problems that need to be addressed (like encouraging contested elections, more inclusive leadership, encouraging initiative on the club level and making it clear that having a title or not having a title has nothing to do with how active you can be in the club).
Article IX - proportional voting at E-Board meetings: I agree. I think 1 club, 1 vote at EBoard meetings is the only fair way to have E-Board meetings at all - otherwise we are having 4 conventions a year and imposing great expense on clubs to get the requisite number of people to carry all votes at each and every blessed meeting we have. Small clubs get screwed in their say, big clubs get screwed in their pocket books (twice: once for having to charter that many people, again for getting them to meetings). Everyone loses.
Article IX - committee chair votes: I think Ed means caucus chairs here - and assuming so, no Caucus chairs save the CCD President should carry an individual vote at E-Board meetings. Period.
On college chartering schedule: if we new for sure that we would have reliable record keeping for this kind of calendaring, I'd be less hesitant to endorse the idea - though I think it might be something to be kept in mind should technology enable us to keep track of things well.
That said: fall-off of club membership already is possible and probably likely/existant already. There's usually a big membership push before chartering and less attention paid after.
In response:
-Article II regional expansion: From a policy standpoint, I think if a region is bustling to the point where it needs to be split, great. There are regions with vast geographic area that aren't bustling and probably don't need to be split (unless you take the view that maybe more people are needed to cover turf and build clubs). So the question is whether you think LA needs its own director and the other regions need one. I also fear the too-many-chiefs-not-enough-indians consequences of increasing board members. Of course, there are also proposals to remove votes from regional directors and other board members - so balance as you will. Personally, I have no passionate views on this proposal if it leads to more hard workers and not more title-seeking space-wasters.
Article IV on naming the credentials chair: It is not a voluntary deadline. It is an absolute deadline mandated by the bylaws. The deadline by which the president must appoint the credentials committee chair is no more voluntary a duty than the mandated duty to elect a board yearly at our state convention. A fall back person may seem like a nice practical touch, but it's needless verbiage. The whole volunteer run organization exists by virtue of officers executing voluntary events - if you want to look at it that way.
Article IV - raising the bar for votes: I agree with Ed. The arms race for votes will always be a danger. Hell, someone could accuse California at a national level for over-promoting itself to maximize representation and electoral college power. On a realistic level: the institutional history here weighs against monkeying around with vote requirements. Contested elections - which I will forever maintain are far healthier than the pat, assumed leadership exchanges normally experienced in CYD and elsewhere - have been historically rare. Will they continue? Perhaps. And again, that'd be great. But there's only so much we can do - and I think the place to beef up security is on our end (credentialing) and not in the vote allocations at the chartering level because it dissuades clubs from chartering or trying to raise their numbers. And if clubs are going to fake 25 members, they can and will fake 50.
Article IV - Officer votes: I agree partly with Ed's comments here. However, I will say that from a getting-sh*t-done standpoint, removing officer votes SOLELY for elections would not hamper the Board's ability to conduct business because E-Board votes remain untouched (or at least that's an option). And policy-wise, that's the reason why SO many more people become individual voters under the E-Board article than during state conventions. On a selfish level, as a Board member, I enjoy having an individual vote. At the same time, as a former non-Board member and someone who has disagreed with board actions and feared in-crowd syndrome at the Board level, I empathize with those who fear too much Board say in their own longevity/anointing of successors. I'm not sure where I stand, personally, on this issue. At the very least, the fact that we're considering it should alert us to institutional problems that need to be addressed (like encouraging contested elections, more inclusive leadership, encouraging initiative on the club level and making it clear that having a title or not having a title has nothing to do with how active you can be in the club).
Article IX - proportional voting at E-Board meetings: I agree. I think 1 club, 1 vote at EBoard meetings is the only fair way to have E-Board meetings at all - otherwise we are having 4 conventions a year and imposing great expense on clubs to get the requisite number of people to carry all votes at each and every blessed meeting we have. Small clubs get screwed in their say, big clubs get screwed in their pocket books (twice: once for having to charter that many people, again for getting them to meetings). Everyone loses.
Article IX - committee chair votes: I think Ed means caucus chairs here - and assuming so, no Caucus chairs save the CCD President should carry an individual vote at E-Board meetings. Period.
On college chartering schedule: if we new for sure that we would have reliable record keeping for this kind of calendaring, I'd be less hesitant to endorse the idea - though I think it might be something to be kept in mind should technology enable us to keep track of things well.
That said: fall-off of club membership already is possible and probably likely/existant already. There's usually a big membership push before chartering and less attention paid after.
But not sure if it let me as I don't have a blogger account. Here's what I had to say:
I agree with almost all of Christiana's comments - well said. My only difference is on this matter:
"Article IV on naming the credentials chair: It is not a voluntary deadline. It is an absolute deadline mandated by the bylaws. The deadline by which the president must appoint the credentials committee chair is no more voluntary a duty than the mandated duty to elect a board yearly at our state convention. A fall back person may seem like a nice practical touch, but it's needless verbiage. The whole volunteer run organization exists by virtue of officers executing voluntary events - if you want to look at it that way."
Ok, it's mandated by the laws - fine. So, what happens when the President does not name someone by the January 15th deadline? As it stands, there is not incentive (i.e. penalty) that compells the President to act by this date. If he/she doesn't name someone by this date, does the rest of the organization sit around until he/she gets to it? Chartering is a time-sensitive activity and as such I don't think that one person should be able to hold-up the process either via neglect or intent. Naming a default person, to take over chartering in the event that the President does not "get around to it," ensures that the process can move forward. Granted, while the scenario may be unlikely, similar events have happened before.
I agree with almost all of Christiana's comments - well said. My only difference is on this matter:
"Article IV on naming the credentials chair: It is not a voluntary deadline. It is an absolute deadline mandated by the bylaws. The deadline by which the president must appoint the credentials committee chair is no more voluntary a duty than the mandated duty to elect a board yearly at our state convention. A fall back person may seem like a nice practical touch, but it's needless verbiage. The whole volunteer run organization exists by virtue of officers executing voluntary events - if you want to look at it that way."
Ok, it's mandated by the laws - fine. So, what happens when the President does not name someone by the January 15th deadline? As it stands, there is not incentive (i.e. penalty) that compells the President to act by this date. If he/she doesn't name someone by this date, does the rest of the organization sit around until he/she gets to it? Chartering is a time-sensitive activity and as such I don't think that one person should be able to hold-up the process either via neglect or intent. Naming a default person, to take over chartering in the event that the President does not "get around to it," ensures that the process can move forward. Granted, while the scenario may be unlikely, similar events have happened before.
Hi Everyone. I hope all of you are well and I look forward to seeing you soon!
I want to share a few of my thoughts on proposed by-law changes.
First, while I acknowledge that it is important to use the blog and our list-serve to discuss possible changes, I would also like to request ample discussion time at our Manhattan Beach meeting. I prefer to share my views and listen to the opinions of others in person. I suggest a genuine, in-person discussion, with a brief break before we vote--perhaps half an hour so that we may all ‘cool off.’ An in-person forum offers greater potential as a safe space in which we may all be heard without getting angry. It also makes discussion quicker and easier.
I have a great deal to say about proposed changes, but I have prioritized my thoughts and offer brief comments below. Please take a look if you have a chance. Since I feel more comfortable speaking than I do writing, you can count on me to bring up my concerns at our meeting as well
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong.
I have mixed feelings about this amendment. As the former president of a very large club and the former Bay Area Regional Director, I am certain that this change will lower the incentive for club growth and make large clubs feel less welcome in the organization. Since big clubs can raise money, put together major events, and hold the attention of political leaders on their own, they already have less incentive to charter with CYD or to participate in CYD campaigns and activities. The Bay Area is home to several of these big groups, and as the former Bay Area Regional Director, I was well aware of a common sentiment that CYD has nothing to offer big clubs. I know that the same sentiment is shared by some large clubs in the L.A. area. Big clubs who still choose to charter their full membership do so because they are proud of the size of their group and because they appreciate the fair representation that they are granted during elections. If we can’t offer pride and election votes, we’re going to make it even harder to keep big clubs around.
As a CYD officer, I want all of our clubs to feel valued. I am concerned that smaller clubs feel like they are overpowered by big groups, and so I have been receptive to this amendment only because some smaller clubs see it as a way to amplify their voice in the organization.
However, there have to be other ways to do this. I am certain that we can help clubs feel valued without taking away votes from our biggest groups. Perhaps a concentrated effort to educate small clubs about the power that they already have would help.
Article IX, section 2: Allow clubs to vote proportionately at Exec meetings.
This would undo what the above amendment seeks to do. Assigning one vote to each club for Exec meetings ensures that small clubs still hold a lot of power at most CYD meetings. Rather than disenfranchising large clubs during CYD elections to help small clubs feel more important, and then taking away the real power that small clubs hold during Exec. Board meetings, why don’t we engage in a campaign to educate small clubs about this voting right? I am willing to bet that most small clubs don’t have Exec Board meetings in mind when they feel undervalued in CYD decisions. In reality, our Elections are infrequent, and Exec. Board meetings are where most of our work gets done.
Ed is right, too. This amendment will also create a never ending rush of expensive trips for large clubs, who will have to mobilize their membership to travel every time they simply need one representative to cast a vote. We should encourage more members to attend Exec Board meetings, but this isn’t they way to do it.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes.
Clubs should play an important role in shaping CYD decisions and they do. Clubs votes outweigh officer votes at Exec board meetings, and far outweigh officer votes during elections.
CYD is a young group and our leadership changes quickly. Brilliant young club leaders may play an important role in shaping CYD decisions for a few months and then disappear forever to lead successful lives with the leadership skills they learned in CYD. This is as it should be, but with all of this constant change, we also need leaders with more institutional memory to guide CYD decisions. Officers offer this memory when we vote.
Also, as a CYD officer, I signed on to be a servant of the organization, not a slave. Most decisions made at CYD Exec board meetings outline the work that officers will do. If officers don’t participate in making these decisions, we’re going to be asked to do things that are impossible. When officers vote at Exec Board meetings, we’re guiding CYD plans, setting timelines, etc. so that we can reasonably meet the wishes of our membership.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes.
I appreciate committee chairs and the hard and necessary work that they do, and I have often been appointed to do work for CYD, so I know that it can be frustrating to do work without a voice.
That said, it is fair for officers to vote because we are elected by our members. Committee chairs are appointed by the CYD president. Allowing presidential appointees to vote eliminates the appearance of fairness in CYD Exec board decisions and in Elections. I am not suggesting any potential for real corruption. The appearance of unfairness alone is enough reason to deny committee chair votes.
I may, however, be interested in allowing committee chairs to be elected by our general membership, in which case I would be happy to support committee chair votes.
I want to share a few of my thoughts on proposed by-law changes.
First, while I acknowledge that it is important to use the blog and our list-serve to discuss possible changes, I would also like to request ample discussion time at our Manhattan Beach meeting. I prefer to share my views and listen to the opinions of others in person. I suggest a genuine, in-person discussion, with a brief break before we vote--perhaps half an hour so that we may all ‘cool off.’ An in-person forum offers greater potential as a safe space in which we may all be heard without getting angry. It also makes discussion quicker and easier.
I have a great deal to say about proposed changes, but I have prioritized my thoughts and offer brief comments below. Please take a look if you have a chance. Since I feel more comfortable speaking than I do writing, you can count on me to bring up my concerns at our meeting as well
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong.
I have mixed feelings about this amendment. As the former president of a very large club and the former Bay Area Regional Director, I am certain that this change will lower the incentive for club growth and make large clubs feel less welcome in the organization. Since big clubs can raise money, put together major events, and hold the attention of political leaders on their own, they already have less incentive to charter with CYD or to participate in CYD campaigns and activities. The Bay Area is home to several of these big groups, and as the former Bay Area Regional Director, I was well aware of a common sentiment that CYD has nothing to offer big clubs. I know that the same sentiment is shared by some large clubs in the L.A. area. Big clubs who still choose to charter their full membership do so because they are proud of the size of their group and because they appreciate the fair representation that they are granted during elections. If we can’t offer pride and election votes, we’re going to make it even harder to keep big clubs around.
As a CYD officer, I want all of our clubs to feel valued. I am concerned that smaller clubs feel like they are overpowered by big groups, and so I have been receptive to this amendment only because some smaller clubs see it as a way to amplify their voice in the organization.
However, there have to be other ways to do this. I am certain that we can help clubs feel valued without taking away votes from our biggest groups. Perhaps a concentrated effort to educate small clubs about the power that they already have would help.
Article IX, section 2: Allow clubs to vote proportionately at Exec meetings.
This would undo what the above amendment seeks to do. Assigning one vote to each club for Exec meetings ensures that small clubs still hold a lot of power at most CYD meetings. Rather than disenfranchising large clubs during CYD elections to help small clubs feel more important, and then taking away the real power that small clubs hold during Exec. Board meetings, why don’t we engage in a campaign to educate small clubs about this voting right? I am willing to bet that most small clubs don’t have Exec Board meetings in mind when they feel undervalued in CYD decisions. In reality, our Elections are infrequent, and Exec. Board meetings are where most of our work gets done.
Ed is right, too. This amendment will also create a never ending rush of expensive trips for large clubs, who will have to mobilize their membership to travel every time they simply need one representative to cast a vote. We should encourage more members to attend Exec Board meetings, but this isn’t they way to do it.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes.
Clubs should play an important role in shaping CYD decisions and they do. Clubs votes outweigh officer votes at Exec board meetings, and far outweigh officer votes during elections.
CYD is a young group and our leadership changes quickly. Brilliant young club leaders may play an important role in shaping CYD decisions for a few months and then disappear forever to lead successful lives with the leadership skills they learned in CYD. This is as it should be, but with all of this constant change, we also need leaders with more institutional memory to guide CYD decisions. Officers offer this memory when we vote.
Also, as a CYD officer, I signed on to be a servant of the organization, not a slave. Most decisions made at CYD Exec board meetings outline the work that officers will do. If officers don’t participate in making these decisions, we’re going to be asked to do things that are impossible. When officers vote at Exec Board meetings, we’re guiding CYD plans, setting timelines, etc. so that we can reasonably meet the wishes of our membership.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes.
I appreciate committee chairs and the hard and necessary work that they do, and I have often been appointed to do work for CYD, so I know that it can be frustrating to do work without a voice.
That said, it is fair for officers to vote because we are elected by our members. Committee chairs are appointed by the CYD president. Allowing presidential appointees to vote eliminates the appearance of fairness in CYD Exec board decisions and in Elections. I am not suggesting any potential for real corruption. The appearance of unfairness alone is enough reason to deny committee chair votes.
I may, however, be interested in allowing committee chairs to be elected by our general membership, in which case I would be happy to support committee chair votes.
Hi Everyone. I hope all of you are well and I look forward to seeing you soon!
I want to share a few of my thoughts on proposed by-law changes.
First, while I acknowledge that it is important to use the blog and our list-serve to discuss possible changes, I would also like to request ample discussion time at our Manhattan Beach meeting. I prefer to share my views and listen to the opinions of others in person. I suggest a genuine, in-person discussion, with a brief break before we vote--perhaps half an hour so that we may all ‘cool off.’ An in-person forum offers greater potential as a safe space in which we may all be heard without getting angry. It also makes discussion quicker and easier.
I have a great deal to say about proposed changes, but I have prioritized my thoughts and offer brief comments below. Please take a look if you have a chance. Since I feel more comfortable speaking than I do writing, you can count on me to bring up my concerns at our meeting as well
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong.
I have mixed feelings about this amendment. As the former president of a very large club and the former Bay Area Regional Director, I am certain that this change will lower the incentive for club growth and make large clubs feel less welcome in the organization. Since big clubs can raise money, put together major events, and hold the attention of political leaders on their own, they already have less incentive to charter with CYD or to participate in CYD campaigns and activities. The Bay Area is home to several of these big groups, and as the former Bay Area Regional Director, I was well aware of a common sentiment that CYD has nothing to offer big clubs. I know that the same sentiment is shared by some large clubs in the L.A. area. Big clubs who still choose to charter their full membership do so because they are proud of the size of their group and because they appreciate the fair representation that they are granted during elections. If we can’t offer pride and election votes, we’re going to make it even harder to keep big clubs around.
As a CYD officer, I want all of our clubs to feel valued. I am concerned that smaller clubs feel like they are overpowered by big groups, and so I have been receptive to this amendment only because some smaller clubs see it as a way to amplify their voice in the organization.
However, there have to be other ways to do this. I am certain that we can help clubs feel valued without taking away votes from our biggest groups. Perhaps a concentrated effort to educate small clubs about the power that they already have would help.
Article IX, section 2: Allow clubs to vote proportionately at Exec meetings.
This would undo what the above amendment seeks to do. Assigning one vote to each club for Exec meetings ensures that small clubs still hold a lot of power at most CYD meetings. Rather than disenfranchising large clubs during CYD elections to help small clubs feel more important, and then taking away the real power that small clubs hold during Exec. Board meetings, why don’t we engage in a campaign to educate small clubs about this voting right? I am willing to bet that most small clubs don’t have Exec Board meetings in mind when they feel undervalued in CYD decisions. In reality, our Elections are infrequent, and Exec. Board meetings are where most of our work gets done.
Ed is right, too. This amendment will also create a never ending rush of expensive trips for large clubs, who will have to mobilize their membership to travel every time they simply need one representative to cast a vote. We should encourage more members to attend Exec Board meetings, but this isn’t they way to do it.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes.
Clubs should play an important role in shaping CYD decisions and they do. Clubs votes outweigh officer votes at Exec board meetings, and far outweigh officer votes during elections.
CYD is a young group and our leadership changes quickly. Brilliant young club leaders may play an important role in shaping CYD decisions for a few months and then disappear forever to lead successful lives with the leadership skills they learned in CYD. This is as it should be, but with all of this constant change, we also need leaders with more institutional memory to guide CYD decisions. Officers offer this memory when we vote.
Also, as a CYD officer, I signed on to be a servant of the organization, not a slave. Most decisions made at CYD Exec board meetings outline the work that officers will do. If officers don’t participate in making these decisions, we’re going to be asked to do things that are impossible. When officers vote at Exec Board meetings, we’re guiding CYD plans, setting timelines, etc. so that we can reasonably meet the wishes of our membership.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes.
I appreciate committee chairs and the hard and necessary work that they do, and I have often been appointed to do work for CYD, so I know that it can be frustrating to do work without a voice.
That said, it is fair for officers to vote because we are elected by our members. Committee chairs are appointed by the CYD president. Allowing presidential appointees to vote eliminates the appearance of fairness in CYD Exec board decisions and in Elections. I am not suggesting any potential for real corruption. The appearance of unfairness alone is enough reason to deny committee chair votes.
I may, however, be interested in allowing committee chairs to be elected by our general membership, in which case I would be happy to support committee chair votes.
Post a Comment
I want to share a few of my thoughts on proposed by-law changes.
First, while I acknowledge that it is important to use the blog and our list-serve to discuss possible changes, I would also like to request ample discussion time at our Manhattan Beach meeting. I prefer to share my views and listen to the opinions of others in person. I suggest a genuine, in-person discussion, with a brief break before we vote--perhaps half an hour so that we may all ‘cool off.’ An in-person forum offers greater potential as a safe space in which we may all be heard without getting angry. It also makes discussion quicker and easier.
I have a great deal to say about proposed changes, but I have prioritized my thoughts and offer brief comments below. Please take a look if you have a chance. Since I feel more comfortable speaking than I do writing, you can count on me to bring up my concerns at our meeting as well
Article IV, section 2 – raising the bar for +1 votes to clubs over 100 members strong.
I have mixed feelings about this amendment. As the former president of a very large club and the former Bay Area Regional Director, I am certain that this change will lower the incentive for club growth and make large clubs feel less welcome in the organization. Since big clubs can raise money, put together major events, and hold the attention of political leaders on their own, they already have less incentive to charter with CYD or to participate in CYD campaigns and activities. The Bay Area is home to several of these big groups, and as the former Bay Area Regional Director, I was well aware of a common sentiment that CYD has nothing to offer big clubs. I know that the same sentiment is shared by some large clubs in the L.A. area. Big clubs who still choose to charter their full membership do so because they are proud of the size of their group and because they appreciate the fair representation that they are granted during elections. If we can’t offer pride and election votes, we’re going to make it even harder to keep big clubs around.
As a CYD officer, I want all of our clubs to feel valued. I am concerned that smaller clubs feel like they are overpowered by big groups, and so I have been receptive to this amendment only because some smaller clubs see it as a way to amplify their voice in the organization.
However, there have to be other ways to do this. I am certain that we can help clubs feel valued without taking away votes from our biggest groups. Perhaps a concentrated effort to educate small clubs about the power that they already have would help.
Article IX, section 2: Allow clubs to vote proportionately at Exec meetings.
This would undo what the above amendment seeks to do. Assigning one vote to each club for Exec meetings ensures that small clubs still hold a lot of power at most CYD meetings. Rather than disenfranchising large clubs during CYD elections to help small clubs feel more important, and then taking away the real power that small clubs hold during Exec. Board meetings, why don’t we engage in a campaign to educate small clubs about this voting right? I am willing to bet that most small clubs don’t have Exec Board meetings in mind when they feel undervalued in CYD decisions. In reality, our Elections are infrequent, and Exec. Board meetings are where most of our work gets done.
Ed is right, too. This amendment will also create a never ending rush of expensive trips for large clubs, who will have to mobilize their membership to travel every time they simply need one representative to cast a vote. We should encourage more members to attend Exec Board meetings, but this isn’t they way to do it.
Article IV, section 2 – officer votes.
Clubs should play an important role in shaping CYD decisions and they do. Clubs votes outweigh officer votes at Exec board meetings, and far outweigh officer votes during elections.
CYD is a young group and our leadership changes quickly. Brilliant young club leaders may play an important role in shaping CYD decisions for a few months and then disappear forever to lead successful lives with the leadership skills they learned in CYD. This is as it should be, but with all of this constant change, we also need leaders with more institutional memory to guide CYD decisions. Officers offer this memory when we vote.
Also, as a CYD officer, I signed on to be a servant of the organization, not a slave. Most decisions made at CYD Exec board meetings outline the work that officers will do. If officers don’t participate in making these decisions, we’re going to be asked to do things that are impossible. When officers vote at Exec Board meetings, we’re guiding CYD plans, setting timelines, etc. so that we can reasonably meet the wishes of our membership.
Article IX, section 2: Committee Chair votes.
I appreciate committee chairs and the hard and necessary work that they do, and I have often been appointed to do work for CYD, so I know that it can be frustrating to do work without a voice.
That said, it is fair for officers to vote because we are elected by our members. Committee chairs are appointed by the CYD president. Allowing presidential appointees to vote eliminates the appearance of fairness in CYD Exec board decisions and in Elections. I am not suggesting any potential for real corruption. The appearance of unfairness alone is enough reason to deny committee chair votes.
I may, however, be interested in allowing committee chairs to be elected by our general membership, in which case I would be happy to support committee chair votes.
<< Home
