What three things would improve RCSC and make it more member friendly? And then ask yourself why each would fulfill some element of the mission, vision and value statement. Be specific so the reader can say OK I get it. Also, please limit the list to items that are actionable. I can start off: The responsibility for member satisfaction would be listed as a duty of the board in the bylaws, would be assigned to the GM as a job responsibility and would be measured annually and good deeds would be rewarded. IMHO this could be implemented quickly. IMHO this would institutionalize a member centric culture. It would support the value of keeping RCSC a friendly welcoming place. The responsibility for "strategic planning" would be assigned to a member of the staff who would provide a framework for data driven decision making for PIF projects. Some may find laying out decision criteria too confining, but I would argue it is the best way to assure consistency in long term planning. The criteria would be guided by the goal of retaining and attracting new members and would support our mission of being a national leader in 55+ communities. Any other thoughts.
There was a time that whenever the Board wanted to amend the Bylaws, it had to be done at a Membership Meeting. The nice thing about that was the fact that the Members had an opportunity to debate the issue for longer than just a 3 minute sound bite! This Board and working group has only driven a wedge that further separates the Membership from the Board. Being a Member of the RCSC is not much different than joining a gym! You simply pay your annual dues (assessment) use the equipment, and go by the rules of the gym and having no option to change them! These revised bylaws have really screwed the pooch!
I think it is telling that those who are most active on this thread have no suggestions for improvements.
John, we know very well what improvements need to be made, but when the Members no longer have the opportunity or method to do so, what do you expect? These new bylaws have done us Members no favors!
Guess what John? Gotcha again! I started a new thread about returning to nonprofit tax exemption 501c3. This then creates a tremendous opportunity for creating the corporation as it was with some modifications. The action of rewriting the AOI AND THE BYLAWS gives an opportunity of great proportion. So, there’s an idea of how to create change in a positive way and still create member inclusivity. A radical approach but if the former gm could do it once, why can’t it be done again?
I think returning to a 501(c)3 is an interesting idea that the Board of Directors should explore. Thanks for the suggestion, Carole. I didn't know that it once was a 501(c)3.
I think it would be wise to return to only amending the Bylaws at a Membership meeting. If that were to be done, the quorum may need to be less.
Thank you Janet. It was a 501c3 originally until the gm, trying to beat the Stewart lawsuit, changed the tax filing
Here lies the problem, as I see it, to amending the bylaws at a membership meeting: it would be like herding cats and would last forever. The varying degrees of knowledge, the varying degrees of wants with the different levels of tolerance could prove an impossible task with that many members in the room together. The working group format has its merits, but needs to have the time for input from members along the way. Still makes the process slow, but doable
Well,...it seemed to have worked in the past? And that was when there were 4 meetings a year and a quorum requirement of only 100. I agree that a quorum of only 100 could be dangerous, but any Parliamentarian will tell you that a quorum should be set at the reasonable number of Members typically expected too attend. Set the number to high and you won't hold a meeting for 12 years!!!
Even at four meetings a year, the current mess would take 10 years when you include discussions and voting on each proposal for change. I love group dynamics, but they can be a hinderance as well sometimes.
Give the Membership some credit. If it worked in the past there's no reason it won't work again. The reason there wasn't a meeting for 12 years was because they set the quorum too high. Perhaps try just holding 2 Membership meetings a year but also only allow the Board to amend the Bylaws at those meetings. I think the Board amends the bylaws far to often. Just my opinion.
Great suggestion! • Gives the board plenty of time for “work group monitoring” and Members to independently create and propose amended bylaws at two Membership meetings. • Eliminates the board’s need to urgently dump everything at the end of the year. • Spares both Members and board from attending excessive number of meetings… board, town halls, special sessions. AND adherence to Articles of Incorporation: • In the event of conflict concerning the Bylaws as amended, modified, revised, or revoked by the Directors, the action of the Members shall prevail.
Thank you for engaging in dialogue on what can be done. I understand why we should all be skeptical. This board has chosen to exclude the members to achieve efficient decision making. The 2027 board may see it differently.
Perhaps a quorum of 100 wouldn't be too much if we limited the number of proxies to two per person. When I served on the bylaws review committee, the parliamentarian suggested that a quorum is usually the average number of people that attend regular meetings. That didn't go over too well with some other committee members. We were lucky to get the quorum reduced from 1200 to 500.
I know in my heart that the quorum was raised to such an untenable number knowingly to try and curtail members actions as well as control the board to her will. If the members couldn’t gather a quorum, this would have meant the meeting adjourned for another year. A convenient way to control the board and the members.
