Proposal: bylaws update

Quick access:  
Introduction  
Summary of changes  
Amendment process  
Elections  
Contributors  
September 27 update  
Comments and feedback

Vote information
A vote on this proposal has been scheduled for Sunday, November 6th, 2011 at 4:30PM at 1402 Wooldridge, the site of the neighborhood picnic. All voting members are strongly encouraged to vote. You do not have to attend the meeting to vote; you can submit a proxy form instead.
    Download proxy form here
We will also be emailing this form to all voting members who have given us a valid email address.


Introduction

Several months ago, members of the board met along with several active volunteers to discuss how to re-energize the association. One of the conclusions was that the bylaws needed revision, in order to simplify the structure and function of the board, to encourage more volunteer participation, and to take advantage of new technologies.

The proposed bylaws can be found here. For comparison, the current bylaws are here. Each of these links opens in a new window.


Summary of changes

  • Electronic voting. Holding an association-wide vote for board elections, amendments, and other matters currently requires calling a meeting and obtaining a quorum with attendance or proxy votes. We propose to implement an email and/or web-based process for votes. We believe this will enhance participation in board elections and other matters put to a vote. Indeed, we believe that this process will encourage the board to put more matters to a vote.
  • Simplified board structure. Currently, the bylaws call for five elected officers and five to seven at-large members and up to five appointed honorary directors. The directors serve two years; the officers one year. We propose to reduce the board simply to five directors with two-year terms. The terms would be staggered, so we will elect at least two new directors each year. The director who serves as Vice President in his first term would automatically becomes President in the second term.
  • Electronic communication. We propose to certify the use of email and the website as the official means of communicating with members. The newsletter shall remain for the foreseeable future; however, because we do not have full editorial control over it, we felt it was important to give the Board the power to use the website more.
  • Membership. We added explicit language that people who own property in Pemberton Heights are members, even if they do not reside here.
  • Dues. We propose to reduce dues for voting members to $30/year to encourage wider subscription. The procedure for modifying the dues level has been changed slightly.
  • Books and records. As records are currently kept offline, members had to make a special request to inspect them. We can now create a member’s only section of the site so that records can be viewed on demand, so we propose to adopt that choice.


Amendment process

The amendment process must conform to Article XIII of our current bylaws. To conduct the vote, the board must call a special meeting of the association; this announcement will be made shortly. In order to ensure the widest possible participation among voting members, we will be soliciting proxy votes from all voting members; therefore, you may place a vote without the need to attend the meeting. If you are not yet a voting member and wish to become one, please see here.


Elections

Whether or not these new bylaws are adopted, the next order of business will be to elect a new board. We sincerely hope that every member with an interest in actively serving the community will consider running for the board. Announcements about the scheduling of this election will follow the completion of the amendment vote (since, after all, the structure of that election depends on its outcome).


Contributors

The following people have contributed to this bylaws proposal:
Board members: Tom Daniel, Charles Heimsath, Susan Pascoe, Candace Volz
Member volunteers: Julie Briggs, Michael Grant, Jeff Minch
We also thank Kelly Dwyer and Betty Trent for helpful comments.
Thank you to Jane Hayman for the discussions that resulted in the September 27 update.


Updates

September 27: Thank you for all of the great feedback we have received. We have made two changes to the September 1 version of the bylaws proposal:

  • Langauge has been added to Article V, “Board of Directors”, to state that the President, Vice President, and Treasurer shall all have signing authority on the financial accounts of the Association.
  • The language in Article VI, “Meetings”, has been reworked to provide more formality and accountability. Electronic meetings are now pub subject to the same reporting and public access requirements as physical meetings. In addition, full minutes shall be taken and published for each meeting.

We hope that these changes address the most serious concerns that members may have. Formal announcements about these updates will be made along with the schedule for the vote.


Comments and feedback

We’ve opened comments on this post. Please feel free to leave your comments, questions, and feedback about the proposal.

  • Jane Hayman

    A few questions:
    According to the former by laws adoption of amendments requires approval by 2/3 of voting members. How many voting members are there currently? When will the cut off day be for joining, in order to vote?

    No mention of Board Meetings Minutes. How will members be able to tell what items have been discussed and what votes have been taken?

    Financial oversight. Will the treasurer be responsible for both collecting dues and also paying bills? If so, this doesn’t comport with customary accounting procedures and accepted practices.

    Re political issues. In addition to endorsement of political candidates, there should probably also be a restriction on board endorsement of controversial political issues such as historic zoning–particularly since the proposed bylaws would establish a
    system where a board quorum could be three people and a majority of that could be two individuals. (Its sort of questionable whether decisions regarding the well being of the neighborhood could be made by only two residents…particularly since there is not provision for neighborhood wide notice of upcoming board meetings coupled with relevant agendas.) another example of controversial issues debated in the recent past was the installation of traffic slowing mechanisms.

    What steps will be taken to ensure inclusivity in Board membership? what will prevent the governing group from preventing participation by those with differing viewpoints?

  • Michael Grant

    Jane, great questions. Here are some quick answers that I have for now. I don’t have them all though, so I hope others will chime in.
    — The last I knew there were over 150 voting members, but I do not know the latest number. I would love for there to be a lot more. Whether this proposal stands or falls, the greater the participation in the vote, the better.
    — The board has not set a date for the special meeting. It is my understanding that you could conceivably become a voting member right up to the date of the meeting. And personally, I want everyone to have plenty of time to digest this proposal.
    — Minutes are discussed in article VI.
    — Regarding inclusivity in Board membership: it seems to me that is what the election process is for. Are you interested in running? :)
    As a general point, I am not sure if some of the concerns you are raising are addressed to your satisfaction even in the current bylaws. For instance, many decisions can currently be made by the board alone, without consultation from members.
    Anyway, I know this is incomplete. I hope others can fill in gaps I have left.

  • Jane hayman

    Thanks for this Mike…I would be pleased to serve.

    I agree that the current by laws could stand some improvement. But at least they provide elements likely to facilitate maximum notice and opportunity for input by all members of the PHNA. Under the current proposals I don’t see how members would have any notice as to what issues might be scheduled for consideration by the board and therefore they’d be effectively precluded from participating in the discussion.

    There is no provision that the membership be notified that a meeting would be taking place and no provision that meetings would be open. Yes, I know that democracy is cumbersome but we really should have a system that provides some effort toward fairness and At least the opportunity for maximum access for all residents or members.

  • Michael Grant

    Jane, are you sure you are reading the actual proposed bylaws (here)? Members are to be notified 14 days in advance of a meeting, including its agenda.

  • Susan Pascoe

    Jane, I definitely do not view historic zoning or other land use matters as a political issue. It’s a quality of life concern related to governmental planning, one of many in which neighborhoods are involved. If we bar our NA from taking a position on it, we’d have to bar NA positions on other planning issues. Addressing such issues is one of the reasons NA’s are established. Many, if not most, of the NA’s in Austin are very active in land use issues. That is often their main activity depending on the area of the city.

  • Anita Vangliesti

    Thanks to Michael, the other board members, and the member volunteers for all their work on this. The changes should help to streamline our governance while allowing everyone a voice.

  • Michael Grant

    Jane, thanks again for your comments. I’m very pleased with how this has started out for a couple of reasons. First of all, because WordPress is working! Aside from some comment spam I had to delete, it looks like y’all can post, and I’m glad. Eventually we can register all members so that the webmaster doesn’t have to continually check in and cull out the spam.

    But secondly, I think the discussion about what are appropriate matters for the association to deal with illuminates why I think these bylaws are an improvement. For any matter the association wishes to consider, there are two options: the board votes to handle it themselves, or they put it to a neighborhood vote. If the board makes the decision, we find out after the fact whether we like it or not. With a neighborhood vote, at least we all have a potential say in the matter.

    Unfortunately, with the current bylaws, a vote requires calling a special meeting and obtaining a quorum of 30 members present and/or proxy votes. That doesn’t seem to have happened very often; and unless there is concerted canvassing for proxy votes, there’s a bit of selection bias in the voting that does occur—because some are more motivated to attend meetings than others. With an electronic vote, however, these problems can be greatly reduced. Voting can occur at the members’ convenience, over a period of several days. We will likely have greater participation and a more diverse set of voices in each vote.

    Now I acknowledge two caveats here. First of all, neither the current or future bylaws mandates a member vote on the issues you raise. That means that what I am describing is a hope or aspiration, not a promise. Secondly, I acknowledge that with the reduced number of board members, there is the potential for a more insular, less diverse board.

    What I would say to that is that the next board election is a great opportunity. We can elect people who will pledge make the best use of the new voting provisions. We can vote strategically for people with competing viewpoints, so that the board is diverse and to encourage them to consult the membership more often. And if the electronic vote process does prove as helpful as I hope, we can consider a bylaws amendment that will mandate its use on a certain set of issues.

  • Thea Wood

    I’d like to thank the board for pro-actively simplifying our system and encouraging participation via by-law updates that take us into the new millennium. Just like our state & national reps, I know that elected officers may not vote in line with all of my positions, but they’re elected b/c neighbors believe that they’ll do what’s best for our neighborhood and act with reason versus passion. My immediate concerns center around stopping the crime wave that plagues all of us. Is there anything we can put in the by-laws on that end? ;-)

  • Jane Hayman

    Notice of impending board meetings is not always required. Board meetings need not be open to the membership. Minutes are not required. The proposals give too much room for information to be withheld and too much opportunity for behind closed door decision making.

    Mike, As I read the proposals, advance notice to members of a board meeting need only be given if the meeting is to occur in a physical location. No notice need be given if
    the board opts to hold the other proposed meeting formats: telephone, electronic, etc.

    I for one don’t want to find out after the fact that two individuals (a board quorum under the proposals) have made a decision by phone or otherwise that may be of significant importance to me to me as a Pemberton resident and property owner. Particularly if it is a decision that I disagree with and particularly if I didn’t know ahead of time that it would be considered. I want to be able to know what the board is doing and what it has done. I don’t need to have someone else (the Board) decide what is important for me to know. I can accept that others are willing to relinquish this involvement.

    In addition, the keeping and reporting of minutes under the proposals is discretionary.
    So, its entirely possible that the two members of the board could convene a phone meeting, take up an issue which is of major importance to me (assume that they didn’t know this and didn’t exclude me intentionally) render an adverse decision and then decide not to provide minutes supporting the decision or its basis. This doesn’t make sense and isn’t in keeping with the objective of widespread participation. If folks decide not to participate or not vote…that’s their decision. It is crucial that all of us be given the opportunity to do so…that the organization be transparent…and that all volunteers be accountable.

    Susan,
    Thank you for all of the time you have dedicated to serving the association. It is truly remarkable and admirable. Zoning issues can be (are) highly controversial and yes they are political too (ask Kathie Tovo, Laura Morrison, & the rest of the City Council—oh yes, ask Randi Shade while you’re at it). Other neighborhood associations are different from PHNA, mainly in that resident membership here has been very limited. In addition, every other NA has by laws that expressly protect the right of members to provide input on issues under consideration by the board. No other Austin neighborhood association would authorize (as the proposed bylaws do) the making of a zoning decision on behalf of the neighborhood during a telephone call between two people.

    Since the inception of the PHNA, its my understanding that less than 25% of the homes here have been voting members. How many is it now? Most of the time the percentage has been closer to 14%. No one representing a majority of 14% of the neighborhood can authoritatively or appropriately speak to the city or county on behalf of the whole or even a majority of the 640 homeowners—unless the issue is raised and openly discussed. The proposed bylaws don’t ensure that.
    If someone decides to testify on behalf of PHNA, failure to identify the extent of Pemberton Heights homeowner participation in the organization is misleading because it suggests that some meaningful majority of people have been polled and agree with the position.

    Thea,
    I can’t help but think that you and many of the people who have been involved with PHNA in the past several years are quite passionate about this neighborhood. I believe this impelled all of you to devote so much time and energy into serving in the various volunteer roles you’ve assumed. While many people are validly content to let others do all the deliberating and decision making and security patrol arranging and website development and newsletter editing ..I firmly believe that it takes passion to do these things and do them well. I can only speak for myself but I believe several others would join me when I say my hat is off to all of you.

  • Susan Pascoe

    Jane,
    No one had in mind any of the intent you are reading into the revised bylaws. As for membership, it grows and dwindles like most organizations. During my time it had ranged from approximately 40% to approximately 20%. Most NA’s struggle with membership just as we do.

  • Michael Grant

    Jane, I certainly acknowledge that the new bylaws strip out many of the formal structures for conducting business. But in fact, under the current bylaws, meetings of the committees are not bound by the reporting requirements. Representatives of task forces are not required to report the results of their efforts. The point is that there are plenty of avenues for skirting the more formal reporting requirements. In fact, consider this clause:”Additional committees may be proposed by members or created by the Board to fulfill specific goals as the Board deems necessary.” That is an open invitation for abuse.

    But the alternative, which would be to add even more rules and restrictions, seems neither practical nor desirable.

    Now to be absolutely clear, the board should be liberal about reporting its activities, and the new bylaws communicate a clear intent that non-trivial decisions of the board are to be reported upon. Perhaps that language can be made a bit more specific—suggestions are welcome. But I think we rely first and foremost on the good faith efforts of those in service.

    If people are determined to serve the neighborhood openly the members will be well served. But if directors or volunteers are determined to operate without oversight it can and will be done, now and in the future. I return to my view, therefore, that the key is electing the right people.

  • Jane Hayman

    Mike,
    Electing well meaning “right people” isn’t enough. I believe that the leaders of the organization to date have been well meaning right people but there has not been adequate notice or the opportunity to participate provided to all who are homeowners in Pemberton.

    The key is openness, transparency and accountability and a system of laws, or by-laws, in this case that assure those qualities. If elected I will make sure that these fundamental elements of a democratic operation are observed consistently and that no Pemberton neighbor is precluded from knowing what the Board is doing or having an opportunity to provide input or participate in an open discussion.

    It is not my intent to disparage or question the intent of any former board member but the system as set out in the proposals is flawed.

    It condones a system where a single person, the treasurer, is authorized to both collect dues and security fund monies AND pay bills. While I have no doubt whatsoever that Susan is of the highest level of integrity, that set up violates accounting controls 101. Yes, I think Susan is a “right person” . The set up is idiotic.

    I’d prefer not to name the former Pemberton board member who has , with the best of intentions, claimed to represent the neighborhood on certain issues to the city…issues which are controversial, and which have not been put to a vote or any sort of poll to determine whether there IS a consensus. Because no minutes of board meetings have been taken for a few years, it is impossible to determine when that position was taken by the board and whether it was done appropriately (with adequate quorum etc).

    We need to have due process. Otherwise the system unfair to us and misleading to others. Adequate by- laws which mandate notice of board meetings; the opportunity for any resident or member to attend and provide input; advance publication of agendas; and minutes indicating action taken are absolutely necessary for a fair and legitimate neighborhood government. I honestly don’t get what the resistance to this point is.
    Many would refer to it as ordinary checks and balances.

    Meetings about neighborhood issues, conducted behind closed doors, which exclude individuals who want to listen and participate in the discussion should not be allowed in the by-laws (as they are in the proposals).

    The “right people” would not want this. If individuals cannot agree to observe such basic rules of order (i.e. notice, agendas, minutes, open meetings, minutes. Then they probably don’t have enough time to serve. If new by-laws don’t include such items then they should be amended. Actually, perhaps it could be explained … are these proposals being offered on a take it or leave it basis? If so, who made that rule?

    I guarantee that if I were on the PHNA Board of Directors, I would make it my priority to ensure transparency and accountability by providing notice of meetings, open access, advance agendas and minutes. Volunteers and leaders need to be accountable and the only way that can happen is if their constituents know what they’re doing.

  • Michael Grant

    Your last paragraph could very well be the first paragraph of your candidate statement, if you choose to run.

  • Jane Hayman

    Are the proposed new bylaws open to amendment prior to a community vote?
    Is this a take it or leave it offer (of the proposals?) If so why? Who decided that?

    As I mentioned before, I agree that the original by-laws could use improvement and modification. I believe they constitute a valid attempt to do that but they also could be improved upon. I’d like to see that happen. Rather than throw out the baby with the bath water.

    I also keep asking, what is the resistance to expressly including required meeting notice, open meetings, advance distribution of agendas and minutes? How else can we ensure that all interested parties have a forum to express their views and all alternative viewpoints can be evaluated by the decision makers? There are 640 houses in Pemberton (correct me if I’m wrong on this) and the proposals would have 5 (or 3 the specified quorum in the proposals) make decisions. I submit that the odds are good that .7% (not 7% but .7%) of the community will not know, the panoply of aspects and opinions which might be involved in any neighborhood issue. If residents are not informed that an issue is to be considered then they can’t weigh in.

    Also, re accounting controls…I have tried and will continue to emphasize that anti-corruption measures are but one facet of basic accounting controls. The PHNA books were askew last year (according to one individual who reviewed them) not, in my opinion because of corruption but because of a flawed system. How has that system been fixed? The proposed bylaws could specify how this could be prevented. They don’t.

    If I understand Michael correctly, he is saying that election of directors is all that is necessary and these issues can be left to their discretion because good people will do right. If that is correct, why limit their discretion in any way? In the proposals there are specific directives relating to board action. For example, why dictate (as the proposals do) that the Board cannot endorse a political candidate but not dictate that Board members cannot represent the constituency to outsiders or the city government without a fair poll of the members? Why do the proposals mandate that if a board meeting is going to happen in a physical location a specific number of days notice must be given to the membership BUT not do that for meetings planned and held electronically?

    The bylaws should include a requirement that the directors have a duty to keep PHNA members informed; specifically by publishing notice of upcoming meetings; offering agendas in advance; providing an opportunity for member participation and keeping meeting minutes which can be accessed by members.

    I vote to amend the proposals before they are put to a community vote.

    In the event there is an election for a new board, pursuant to either the old by-laws or new ones, and in the event I decide to run for a slot, I will ask Michael for more campaign advice. I like what he’s suggesting so far :-) !

  • Michael Grant

    We’ve made some changes in direct response to the feedback we’ve received. We’ve updated this post with a description of the changes here. Thank you for the help!

  • Michael Grant

    I’m afraid the spam traffic is increasing. I’m now going to have to pre-approve every comment that appears here, but all I will be doing is weeding out spam. In the future, when we give each member a dedicated login, this will not be a problem, and we’ll turn moderation off.

  • Michael Grant

    Jane asked the following questions on the mailing list; I thought I would post the answers publicly here:

    1. How many voting members are there now? Of the 640 households within the Pemberton Heights neighborhood, how many are currently eligible to vote on the November 6 By-law proposals?

    I asked Susan. She said at least 163—possibly 2-3 more because payments come in periodically over PayPal and she needs to check that.

    2. Will it not be cheaper to join the association immediately AFTER the bylaw proposals are accepted if they are accepted? As I read the proposals, there is proposed a 40% reduction in association dues. (from $50 per year to $30).

    Yes, that’s right. To clarify, this is for voting membership. All residents are automatically members. Voting membership requires payment of annual dues, and the proposal reduces this to $30. (Interestingly, the current bylaws say $40, but the board can vote to change it. It has been $50 since before I moved here, I think.)

  • Michael Grant

    The following is Monnie Anderson’s post. Unfortunately for reasons unclear he was unable to post it, so I am doing it on his behalf. I have not edited it for content, but I did have to add some formatting tags to restore the boldface in his original post.

    As Monnie pointed out in his email, this was written before the September 27th update: “A compromise version announced 27 Sep by Michael Grant addressed these concerns to a certain degree, but the result is still unsatisfactory.”

    ————

    This is a striped-down version of my post of 24 Sep 2011.

    Monnie Anderson

    IV. Communication
    …This information [Neighborhood List]will be used solely by the Association for activity directly related to the Association, and will not be made available to third parties.

    [MA: Does this mean the List will be available to any resident?]

    …a high quality website which shall become the central organizing mechanism of the neighborhood…

    [MA: It is disingenuous to define all residents as association members and then state that communicating with a subset of them is sufficient. The point is how to tell all residents that something is published on the website. The only solution is to use a newsletter.]

    V. Board of Directors

    …The mission of the Board shall be to exert a gentle hand on the affairs of the Association, and shall seek comity and peacefulness among the Members of the Association….

    [MA: Referring to a gentle hand, comity, and peacefulness serves no purpose except perhaps as a excuse to admonish someone whose views are considered contrary to another’s idea of proper neighborhood behavior.

    The board has no business acting as the neighborhood behavior cop or sensibility judge. Instead the proper purpose of the board is to facilitate the intercommunications of the residents and to attempt to understand and support any general will they have. Certainly the board should have initiative authority, but it serves the neighborhood, not the other way around.

    This means that the primary purposes of the board are to maintain (up to date) a website, operate a list service, and publish a newsletter. To do those things, the board should explicitly oversee those services, by setting editorial policy, netiquette standards, and of course appointing and supervision the persons operating those services.

    Furthermore, whenever the NA is used to facilitate an activity, such as handling finances for auxiliary security, parties, landscaping projects, etc, the board should explicitly oversee those activities as well to ensure they function for the maximum benefit of the neighborhood.

    These are the kind of substantial services the board should provide.

    Trying to avoid the give and take of politics should not be the purpose of the board. Let me elaborate on that point. Volunteering is a spectrum. At one end are non-political volunteers who follow the agenda set by others. In this category are the folks who deliver for Meals on Wheels. At the other end are the volunteers who set agendas; in this category are the folks who started MoW and now direct it. Resolving issues of agenda is a political process, We should not shy away from calling the NA business, especially the work of its board, a political process. The only way it would not be political is if every neighbor agrees on what the NA should do, and that won’t happen. So we should just get used to the idea that the board must fundamentally do conflict resolution—in a word, politics—so attempting to run the association with a gentle hand from aloft shouldn’t be the emphasis.]

    …A majority of the Board may vote to remove another Director for cause….

    [MA: Help from neighborhood lawyers needed: What does “for cause” mean and what does it not mean? It appears that no notice to the membership is required, so what stops a majority of directors from ganging up on one? It would be better to be specific about what constitutes behavior that warrants removal from office, and since the directors are elected by the membership, members should certainly play some role in the dismissal process.]

    …a Director may be reimbursed for expenses pre-authorized and undertaken on behalf of the Association. This expense reimbursement will be reflected in the financial records of the Association.

    [MA: Preauthorized by whom?]

    … the following additional rules shall apply for the first election cycle following the adoption of these bylaws….

    [MA: Does this mean that initially five directors will be elected for up to two years, and after two have been chosen to be president and vice-president, two of the remainder will be chosen to serve one year?]

    …A simple majority of the Board shall comprise a Quorum for the conduct of business. The Board may also conduct meetings in person, or via telephone, chat, or other electronic means.

    [MA: Does this mean that a quorum is three directors? When is a quorum of two permitted?

    Any member should be able to attend any board meeting and to petition it to consider or do something. If the directors what to communicate with each other informally by telephone, email, chat or whatever, they can and will certainly do so, but such conversations should not be construed to be meetings of the board. In particular, the board should not be able to make decisions in the dark without members being allow to hear the debate and the decision and also to comment during the process. Why should the board of the PHNA be given the opportunity to operate in secret?]

    …The Board shall conduct at least one (1) meeting per year in person in a physical location….

    [MA: ANY MEMBER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND ANY BOARD MEETING. This is a very necessary requirement.]

    When a decision is made which will impact the Association or its Members…

    [MA: It is not sufficient that the board tell us after the fact that they have done something that affects us. We have the right to know in advance what is on their agenda. And equally important, we have the right to put items on the agenda. We are not minors nor senile nor have any other condition such that decisions must be made for us without our knowledge and ability to voice our opinions and otherwise participate.

    To elaborate on this, the bylaws need to specify how members can petition the board and how the board must respond to those petitions. The bylaws should not allow the board explicitly or implicitly to ignore what it doesn’t like. Even if one expects contrarian activists to clog the system, don’t design the bylaws to preempt that. PH is not the city of Austin, and the the NA board is not the city council. Let’s assume the best of intentions from all.]

    VII. Elections and Voting

    Each household with at least one Voting Member in good standing….

    [MA: What is a “member in good standing” and what is its opposite? Is this a necessary qualification? Even if a member in bad standing is conceivable, who decides and what does

    XI. Indemnification

    …The Board may secure a liability insurance policy….

    [MA: This is boilerplate phasing that is common in bylaws, but that is not a reason to include it thoughtlessly. Taken literally all residents are collectively financially responsible for the actions of the board. If that is true, then the board should have no option but to buy insurance. If it is not true, then the clause should not exist. There should be no middle ground, such as assuming that the possibility of being held liable is so remote as to be nonexistent. If that is the case, then the clause is pointless and shouldn’t exist. Just because everyone else does it makes no difference.
    I’d like to hear from some neighborhood lawyers on this.]

    XII. Amendments
    …
    [MA: This proposal began as an attempt to amend the current bylaws to accomplish certain objectives. Although it is now presented as a revision to the bylaws, i.e., a new document, it still has the frame of the the source. Rather than start from that source, the bylaws should be rewritten from scratch and only provisions really relevant should be included. Undefined terms should be defined or excluded. Trim it down to fighting weight.]

  • Michael Grant

    Comments are closed for now as I transfer the site over to a new server.