I'm confused; help me out here Dave W.

No, can’t tell you the parlementarian as the committee was sworn to secrecy. Won’t say afterwards either.
I don’t know what happened in the executive session as I didn’t ask and my witness didn’t volunteer. I know about events leading up to the exec session.
Alles zusammen jetzt, Deutschland, Deutschland ueber alles.

 

Wow! So much for transparency! Really makes me want to trust the outcome.

 

Okay folks, can we please keep the conversation on task and focus on what can be done for the future of the community. Grinding old grudges, in my opinion, are not warranted, now or ever.
We all learn from history and the best lesson is to learn the lesson well then move on. Please. My opinion onmy.

 

To Bill's question, yes the President of the Board is the only one with supervisory authority over the GM and only the GM. He or she may approve not providing information to a board member. As far as I know, there is no code of conduct for which directors can be held liable for violating. Welcome to the wild west. Kat Fimmel refused to put at least one motion I made on the agenda. In the near future you will be hearing some other things that may shock you. That is just life in the big city.

 

You wouldn’t like the outcome if the Founding Fathers did the bylaws revision.

 

I am hopeful that the committee's work will improve the situation. Given that I was never contacted for input I am somewhat apprehensive but hopeful.

 

Sorry Tom but I took an oath to secrecy for the process and after which I take seriously, like the one when I joined VISTA.

 

I don't think you can deny that it doesn't look good?

You have at least 4 Directors chairing secret meetings that no one is allowed to attend, that is determining what rules the Members must live under, and which will ultimately be implemented by only 9 Directors!!!

Perception is reality and this doesn't look very good, at all!

 

Tom,
Only if you are paranoid and have absolutely no faith in your fellow members. There are no four chairs no matter what you think and that is an insult to the others who have worked non stop for six months to produce something in your mind is nefarious. You have been sowing the seeds of discontent since this started, essentially trying to prejudice the membership and you wonder about my hostility towards you on this matter?

 

I'll wait to see the results to see if criticism is warranted Dave. The fact of the matter was the board president created his own manure pile when he announced there would be a committee and then redefined it by a working group where everything was kept from view.

My nickles worth is our governing documents were near on perfect until the GM/board decided they no longer trusted the membership to do the right thing.

 

Okay, let's be more accurate, there are 2 chairs and 2 co-chairs because they bifurcated the committee, and who knows how many other directors may have attended those meetings.

The insult is to the Members that weren't allowed to even attend those meetings let alone, perhaps, make some suggestions. You insult Members by believing they wouldn't be able to control themselves.

No, the seeds of discontent comes from the fact that the decision to conduct that "working group" was to be in executive session.

I will definitely wait to see what the final results are and what type of criticism they may or may not deserve. But just a note; if your parliamentarian was the same one who didn't know the difference between an approved agenda and an unapproved agenda, I still have my concerns.

 

The seeds of discontent have been in place for some time now. They have been ever since a GM decided she knew better than the membership and made exclusionary changes to the bylaws that have wreaked havoc on the membership ever since. The losses of the freedoms and inclusivity has been felt by all for years. My suspicion is that the bylaw rewrites will do nothing to enhance member benefits and will further alienate the members from the board. If the rewrites are written to the Arizona Revised Statutes, then the outcome will be, in my opinion, more legalese needing additional definition and will definitely award more power and control to the board. In reading Title 10, I do not see a lot of rewards to the members under the Non-Profit Corporation section.
I have not been a part of the rewrite, but as things have been brought out, I am not hopeful the membership will prevail. The need to claw back member inclusiveness is going to continue to be a slow, painful, process, in my opinion.

 

Whatever the final result is of the current rewrite of the By Laws, they will be rewritten many times
going forward. New members, new Boards, new reasons to change by laws.

 

I agree with you. These bylaws have been rewritten so many times it is unbelievable.