Bylaw Committee Suggestions

Dave, Sorry not playing your game. You know well what was meant and obviously you are only interested in twisting meanings. If you demonstrate you are capable of having an adult conversation on the merits of the subject I am happy to oblige. John

 

John,
I am not “playing a game” as you put it. I think laterally, that is if this specific phrase is mentioned here and it is in reference specifically mentioned in another document, I believe it should be mentioned as such not as a sort of kinda reference that everyone should understand.

The big compliant about the bylaws is that they are difficult to read and understand. Picture you are an average member who is reviewing your motion and then goes to the BP 16 and cannot find that reference, how does that make the bylaws easier to read when you say, well I was only using a euphemism?

No John, I’m not playing a game, I take this very seriously, I am very literal and I want the members to understand the documents that govern them. Who’s the adult in the room now?

 

I, for one, feel the bantering around of the personal issues and grievances has more than been played out. Get angry with me if you choose, but the topic is Bylaw Committee Suggestions, not who said or did what at some other time in the past. We are adults who should be able to have conversations capable of discussing a topic without it rehashing old ills and grievances that are dead issues. What ever happened on a now defunct committee is no longer relevant to what is happening today.
I know I will probably get roasted for saying what I did, but either make the references towards the present and relevant or please find a way to get past whatever you think were wrongs done and please move on. What happened in the past can’t be changed only one’s mindset can be. Please.

 

Yeah, but aren't we suppose to learn from the past?

When you have a committee with just about as many Directors as community Members, and for some of those Members this their second bite of the apple, what can we, or should, we expect?

Let's just say I'm not too optimistic. I hope I'm wrong.

Just my opinion.

 

I agree that the origination and the makeup may not be as expected, but do we also demean its value by tying poor expectations because of the members and directors? This is how the board chose to move forward. We, the members, have no additional input as how the current process is structured. I feel we now need to wait and see the outcome, then there will be room for criticism, if warranted, and reconciliation when possible. Not trying to be cynical, just being aware of where we are in this situation currently. Thank you for the feedback FYI

 

Except for Dave asking for Tom’s notes, we, the members, have no further say in the matter going forward. Sad state of affairs, but the truth. My concern is around the statements made in the posts that, to me, seem caustic. In no way am I suggesting anything said was not warranted or was untrue. I apologize for feeling that the thread got too personal at times. I will not speak to this again. Please pardon my intrusion.

 

Dave, When drafting legal documents (something you have never done), I always tried to make sure they were clear, concise and to the point so they could not be misconstrued. Your methods of sarcastic questioning are very confusing to me. I am used to the Socratic method not the sarcastic method. I believe you will find many helpful suggestions in this thread. There are also other resources for the working group to consider including other community's bylaws. I believe there is also a model set of bylaws that can be a resource. The bottom line is I feel this process is deeply flawed and will probably end up where the last process ended up - Nowhere. I also feel like you are on a "power trip". Enjoy it. I want this constant redrafting of the entire bylaws to be over.

 

CM, no problem. The only reason I asked for Tom’s notes as I saw it was member involvement which seems to be the overriding mantra here. I am sorry he was not chosen and the reason may have been a touch questionable. That said, he may not have been chosen but his works speaks for him and isn’t that what this is all about, member participation, or am I mistaken? I’m sticking my neck out here on this and expect to be beheaded as I see member participation many ways. Those prickly underwriters.

 

One more thing, if anything is adopted or certain language, I will see that he receives credit, after all I’m not into plagiarism.

 

If Tom chooses to share his body of work, it would be a huge asset and gift to the community and the committee.
If he chose to share anything with the committee, it should be with the caveat that he is indeed not only credited for his contributions, but receive written acknowledgment of the contributions that he made. The “working group” would include his name as a consultant/contributor would be entirely appropriate.

 

I’m not holding my breathe on this one. Is you or is you not in?

 

Okay, call me stupid, but are you asking if Tom will share his draft of the bylaws changes? Just daft when it comes to reading some questions.

 

Yes, I am. We can’t say we want member if the members won’t cooperate. He has already shared them with Bill as Bill has already stated how great they are. I have offered a great deal (as a MAGA he should know a great deal), if he blows me off, then any whining about he bylaws presented is moot. Just my opinion.

 

Do you ever stop attacking people Dave? Let's recap, you're on the bylaws committee/oops, my bad working group along with several unnamed others. Tom took the time to read/review some 40 plus years of bylaws and then create a reasonable starting point where they were consolidated back to a manageable and readable level. He had anticipated the opportunity to be part of the process and then was told "sorry, no chance."

And why was that Dave? Because he made the capital crime of submitting a motion to be read (and voted on by the members) at the annual membership meeting. By the way, his single motion was a no-brainer to be put up for a vote. God forbid, yet another sinner amongst us. And now you have the freaking audacity to show up here whine he should share his work in the name of "member engagement."

Let me think about that; piss all over someone, disrespect their right to submit a motion for the members to vote on and then use the fact they did so to disqualify them. But wait, it gets better; you show up on this site and embarrass his efforts with your snarky comments regarding what he wrote. Yup, there's the classic example of "member engagement."

I get it, you don't like Tom because of his politics. You don't like Tom because he insists the board has to follow Robert's Rules of Order because that's what our documents calls for. I get it, you think you have all the answers while others are all just dummies. Why should he bother? With you on the "working group" i suspect we will see results at least as good as the last time you were seated at the table.

Ask yourself this one question before you begin to rewrite those bylaws Dave: Why did the writers of the Articles of Incorporation include in them the ability for the members to override bylaws created by the board? That answer alone should scream volumes at you.

Does it Dave, even a little bit?

 

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it!" A Few Good Men

 

You can’t handle the truth. A Few Good Men

That said, I feel bad he was not chosen and I specifically said that I found the reason questionable. So why are you giving me grief over something I had no control over.

You post Tom’s efforts on the bylaws which apparently have gone for naught, but I give him a chance at a fair hearing citing member engagement, you crap on me. I guess unless the member is there to present, it’s not member engagement. As for the motion he presented, I simply asked him to clarify an ambiguous word. I simply stated a term I knew the attorneys would probably insert. I am in favor of his motion, now there it is on the record. Actually I was trying to help him, it was what, one word? As for saying I was going to make him a legal beagle yet, that was spoken in jest, but if I offended him. I apologize.

Personally I like Tom and apart from RCSC stuff we have had pleasant discussions, like about coffee roasting. Turns out not as easy as I thought. As for Robert’s Rule of Order, I would prefer a certified Parliamentarian.

Again you go with I have all the answers, I’m the smartest person, Everyone else are dummies, will you ever stop this? My guess is no and I don’t know why you don’t like me not that it really matters but stop spouting this kaka over and over again which you know is not true.

So you, as the Anointed One of Sun City has proclaimed that the committee I am seated is doomed to failure. Nice to know you are aware of the final product without knowing anything other than I am one the working group or I have named the group, The Cute Puppies and Kittens Social Circle, showing the name is inconsequential to the final product. It’s only a question of time before you, Tom and others start saying our work is crap we are not looking out for the members,and so forth. Have fun storming the castle.

 

Combative. That is the word I would use to describe your posts, Dave. For what purpose? With the exception of one other, I find the posts collegial and thought provoking. I hope certain board members (or their spouses) reading this find some of the dialogue useful. I do. There are some very good ideas presented that get me to thinking, what if? But listen, I also recognize that I am now on the outside looking in. Perception is reality. Only for those with small minds and a need to have their beliefs confirmed. So, I digress. The benefit of any dialogue is the advancement of thought toward a deeper understanding that cannot be reached without the dialogue. Make sense. In this regard I recall the words of a past president of the RCSC board who said " RCSC has a room full of conceptual drawings never implemented because they were developed in a vacuum." Did we discuss Board Training?

 

This thread has nothing to do with MAGA or anyone else's political views. Cut it out, Dave, as Carole has requested.

 

Stay your sandbox as I have already received the message.

 

I gave up my sandbox about 70 years ago, Dave.