Not really. I think most implications are that what is happening is ill-considered, as in a group of a few members, the composition of which really isn’t well known, is having meetings called “meeting” with the apparent purposes of obfuscating the goings-on, and such meetings clearly having the intent of significantly revamping/restructuring the single most important governing document we have.
You are right…what you are doing is allowed, i.e. members having meetings to discuss whatever they feel like. So is someone walking into the south side of Chicago at night in a white gown and pointy white cap. It’s allowed, but it’s ill-considered.
Question: given recent membership reactions to poor communication and having proceedings and goings-on potentially affecting the whole community/organization not well communicated to the point of purposeful obfuscation (read: kept/made secret), how do you think an attempt at wholesale changes to By-laws will be received, especially if they drop at or near day of voting (or whatever deadlines applies)? I am not against changing the by-laws, in fact, I am violently for it. But if you think the approach being taken is likely to succeed as intended, as opposed to you ending up posting another sad cat picture, you just aren’t thinking it through.
There are better ways to go about this.
@Team_Moderators: feel free to move other By-law changes related posts here.
Like I said before ANYONE can go and form a Bylaws group and study and form their own opinions about what they would like to change. They might decide all kinds of things need to be in the bylaws. They can propose these changes for any Regular Member meeting as well as this election. The board has to approve ballot items or you get 10% of the voting membership to get it on a ballot. ANYONE can do this. This is part of our process
Ill-considered?
This kind of thing should be thought about all year long by lots of people. If they want to share their ideas with me then great, if not and it makes it on to the ballot then I can share my opinion. Perhaps they will campaign first.
The group is planning on campaigning a bit for the ballot items. But we don’t even have them written yet. We are in that process now. When we have them wrote, we will release them to everyone.
If you don’t like it, then you are welcome to show up and help or wait impatiently
There is a reason prototypes are usually developed by a small group (ie, tech skunkworks, etc.). Somebody has to get the concept fleshed out a bit. The first edition out of a skunkworks might not smell all that great, but that’s when more eyeballs and input really help. Creating is not usually a fast process and the more minds involved, the slower it often goes. After all the uproar about what Bylaws do and don’t cover, doubt too many people don’t think some kind of modification is due. And due sooner than later. So I am not seeing the small group initiative as something bad. It’s certainly not secret even if those who aren’t paying attention didn’t realize it was happening. It was “not advertised” on purpose and I think that is an example of foresight to address the “sooner” issue. All that said, I would not be in favor of a rush to vote/pass something this important to DMS if substantive issues were identified by the crowd. So, to sum … I like speed to the test market, slower for evaluation and feedback, time for revision as justified, and an all out effort to make the market product right for the need. We are in the first link of that chain.
Me neither. I don’t have any issue with that. or the effort in general, as already mentioned
This, and corollary issues are my concern. It is entirely possible, and then some, that the BoD will vote to have all suggested items added to en masse without any real vetting since it turns out that a director is closely involved in the drafting/writing.
Once on the ballot, it is then possible, and then some, that poorly written or short-sighted modifications will be passed if campaigned for, especially by BoD members. What’s likely to go by the wayside if these changes are being rushed to the ballot box is the reasonable time for discussion and reflection by the voters, as in us.
Issues with the By laws are not a new issue. A group was started in Oct/Nov of 2017
to do a bylaws cleanup there was ONE meeting, which was invitation only, and the leader made many notes and then he sort of stopped communications with the others of us on the group
I will admit that I should have kept pushing at this issue after that, but it seemed that only afew folks’ were concerned, This year Draco and I started discussing it again and he took the lead in making progress
Nothing has been secret, and the group has worked very hard on this
I see a group of hard working volunteers getting grief from others that either lacked time or
interest to take the initiative on this We are trying to give the members more voice in how DMS is run That seems to be a common complaint
I think this falls in the possible but not probable category. In addition, I think it would be a mistake to not have BOD member input in something like this. The biggest issues seem to be things that have come to the surface as DMS has grown from a 100 member club to a $1 million dollar organization with thousands of members. To not actively involve those who have dealt with the more recent problems (including the major outside push made by PureTax to be less club and more business) would not be wise.
It was announced at the crowded member meeting where folks bot the crud
We have met in the Conference room with the door open most of the time
Translucency does not mean you have to have a glass door on the bathroom
Neither Draco or I are unknown to many members and we are at the space a lot and yet folks were not interested enough to ask it, Now that we have spent many hours on this, including
reading the state law We have some folks that are concerned
Now I am going to leave this because I need a nap, I epect it will be a late night again
Well it does if you think about it this way … there’s a deadline for things to be on the ballot. The group trying to get a proposal together realized they couldn’t make that deadline and do legal vetting. The BoD agreed to move the ballot deadline. Yeah, it’s all tight and folks need to be ready to devote time to review once something is released. Little issues can hopefully get done quickly, bigger ones may require a decision to have another member meeting at a later date. More questions than answers, but I hear the group is busting butts to get something to the membership ASAP. Kudos for them for fighting to get it right versus serving half baked chicken that would surely lead to lots of verbal dysentery!
Yet none of this except the first step has been applied here. We especially should have had time for feedback and revisions. They did not need to get it all 100% including a legal opinion before publishing a draft. It is reasonable to vote down these changes simply because of a lack of voting member involvement regardless of their content.
Respectfully disagree that legal review could wait. No use to critique something that is legally off base. Can’t imagine a much worse scenario than a passionate revision being hammered out on Talk for something that shouldn’t even be considered. And with the revisions coming due to better clarity on what must happen for a legal election, more time should be available for member review.
First, given the Board is participating, and has paid a lawyer to participate, it follows that these are by-law changes wanted by a lame-duck Board that has not distinguished itself legally, ethically, or by skillful action this year. Why on earth would we want that group to analyse problems and author changes?
Bylaws are important, and difficult to change. If we’re going to open that door, then a far more inclusive effort needs to occur to be sure the changes actually help, and address real issues, and are skillfully drafted.
Second, we should be on-guard for changes that may consolidate power around the clique that is currently in charge,