New Bylaws Review

EO was kind enough to reprint the dates for the first meeting of the bylaws review, which is October 20th. She also commented that the content of the meeting should be available one week prior to the meeting. So, ideally, one will be able to peruse the proposed bylaws and review them ahead of time.
The only reason I bring this date up, with the following date available, is that there’s a first reading scheduled for October 29th in the evening. One weeks worth of time between being advised of new changes followed by board action. The only reason I stress my concern is due to the first reading scheduled, in light of recent board decisions, could become a board vote to pass, waiving the second reading and making whatever these rewrites are the new law of the land.
I don’t know what the board intends to do with the rewrites if the members step up and voice any anger with the new rules. I just want people to know what could occur despite the belief that there will be a second reading and members comments allowed.
Be vigilant and keep informed, it’s our community after all.

 

Is it just me or do others believe that when the bylaws go through a complete revision and rewrite, they should need too be approved by the Members and not just the 9 Directors?

 

Member opportunities to speak to the proposed bylaws:

• Town Hall (Bylaws Presentation) - Monday, Oct 20, 2025, 10:00 am-1:30 pm at Sundial Auditorium

• Town Hall (Bylaws Presentation) - Wednesday, Oct 22, 2025, 5:00-9:00 pm at Sundial Auditorium

• Special Session (First Reading of Bylaws) - Wednesday, Oct 29, 2025, 6:00-9:00 pm at Sundial Auditorium

Support documents to review are usually online at least a week in advance. If you choose not to get the RCSC e-mail blast notification, you can visit the archive site daily or periodically to see what is being communicated:

https://us10.campaign-archive.com/home/?u=100083ab001c5179fefc4e0a7&id=81e1c172e3

 

FYI,
I agree, the members should have a say, but this is not going to happen. The rewriting was done by a work group chosen by the board members and no one has been privy to the content.
The members are going to be told what the bylaws say, and I feel there will be little difference made even if the members don’t agree with the content.
My gut feeling is they will be a lot more clinical in nature, to the point, and little to no doubt who is in charge and who will be subservient. Just my opinion only, I truly hope this is not the case.

 

More smoke and mirrors! It gives the perception that there's Member involvement when it's really only allowing comments.

I'm anxious to see how many of the 14 proposed amendments from the Annual Membership meeting are actually addressed!

 

The MO of this board is to spring the changes on the membership, ignore (or don't invite comments) the comments and then vote and waive the second reading... Just syaing

 

No, read Title 10 like I suggested a couple of months ago.

 

I never said they had to, it was just a suggestion so that the Members don't just feel like we're being dictated too, which we are!

I'd have to look. Give me a statute number. As far as I know, the statutes only give the Board of Directors the power to create the initial Bylaws when the corporation is first established, 10-3206.

And I believe the Statutes grant the Articles of Incorporation with the authority to give the Members the power to amend the Bylaws. That's what 10-11021 says! Our Articles of Incorporation only requires that an amendment to the Articles need to be submitted to the Members by the Board but nothing about a Bylaw.

 

A

assumption is the mother of all…….

 

How about putting your money where your mouth is and actually posting the statute numbers that perhaps supports your argument!

As usual, you're excellent and can always be counted on to take the opposite position, but fail to provide the evidence!

 

Nothing like a lazy poster who has had months to read Title 10 but seems to have no problems googling quotes from the Foundling Fathers.

I have provided evidence to support my positions in the past. Your little exercise is for me to provide you some sort of ammunition when the by laws are released. Evidently you have no experience in legal research and are not curious to learn something. The statue is quite clear concerning members and by laws. Title 10 is easily accessible online and sections are labeled quite clearly, so go get them. It will make you more erudite during questions/comments at the town halls and that session you are trying to put together at the community room. You reminded of the boy who sat next to me in school who always wanted to copy my homework.

 

Thank you for once again for making my point. You continually try to change the narrative but never really give any answers.

I'm sorry I'm not as smart as you!

 

Let us all take a breather. There is a chance that the rewriting of the bylaws will not lead to any further dismay or confusion when reading the various ARS amendments and what the bylaws currently contain for the RCSC. This has been a point of contention for a while now, and many needed clarification for the readers to understand what the interpretation was. There has been varying interpretations between the ARS and the RCSC bylaws and let’s hope clarity reigns supreme.
I am sure the group worked very hard to get the bylaws written in a way to provide clarity and prevent any additional confusion.
My concern is the members benefits. I am going to remain hopeful that the members come out ahead of these changes and will create a more harmonious relationship between the two. Knowing that whatever version is proposed is what we will get. Staying hopeful for the membership to prevail better than before.

 

And let's just hope they hadn't bloated the document by repeating those same ARS rules within the bylaws. That's a no-no because the ARS's can change or the bylaw can be amended suddenly causing a conflict.

 

Tom, the fact that ARS can change on a whim is a fact of living in Arizona. It should be that if there are significant changes made to any amendment in the ARS, the corresponding bylaws should reflect that change as well. One more reason why there should be an active, ongoing legislative/legal affairs committee in place. It was disbanded several years ago, but I think we can see the effect of not staying compliant all of these years.
When reading Title 10 Non Profit Organizations, I feel like there are several opportunities for changes to be made. I just hope, again, some of the changes are in a positive light for the members.

 

And that's the exact reason not to duplicate them in the Bylaws! That's my story, and I'm sticking too it!

 

The final reading(2nd reading) of the bylaws will be on November 10th, the afternoon of the exchange meeting. I went looking for the information for my own information, and thought I would share the information with everyone who may want to know.

As I scrolled down the page, I see a mention of Bylaws Review for November 14th at 10am. It states come on out and discuss policy updates. I don’t know if this is an add on to the original board policy rewrite or if this was the original plan for the review, but thought I’d throw that out there as well.

 

CM, while revising the bylaws , the group agreed that some were long winded and actually sounded like policies rather than bylaws. I suspect that meetings covers 1. Policies that come in compliance with bylaws and
bylaws that were sent down to the policy department. I don’t remember any discussion on this although I had to leave one meeting due to a long standing doc appointment.

FYI try the Arizona Nonprofit Corporation Act Title 10, Chapters 24-40. You should find this eye opening. Now go and learn something.

 

I have read many of those statutes. But my question to you is this, what have I accused the bylaws of saying that would warrant me to go read the statutes?

I have no idea what the revised bylaws will say, but I do know of current bylaws that need to be better defined.

 

Dave,
Many question the distinction between a board policy and a bylaw and no clear explanation has ever been given. Perhaps you could clarify this for us.
John