IMHO, the thrust of the proposed changes to the TWDC bylaws is to centralize power with the TWDC Board and reduce the power of residents to independently participate in its committees. The thrust of most of my detailed comments on the proposed TWDC bylaws is to assure that residents are:
* Able to fully participate in TWDC committees and the block clubs (that TWDC provides fiscal support for) and to head them without needing the approval of the TWDC Board
* Not shut out from adding items to committee and block club agendas, making proposals, and voting on proposals (after attending at least a couple of meetings in the last 6 months and three in the last year, to discourage packing of meetings to serve special interests)
* Not denied services and participation, or harassed, because of their views or public expression of their views (including as reporters).
In addition, all financial discussions, budgets, proposals, bids, and decisions on proposals, should be publicly available, except for legitimate business secrets (which would be nevertheless discoverable by appropriate mechanisms that would respect the secrecy of such information).
Thanks for bringing up the issue of the right of low income people to speak for themselves and to have power in the organization.
If I was able to completely re-write the nature of TWDC, it would have a separate, self-governing branches for residents vs. other interests (except for a requirement that at least the resident’s branch be democratic and follow Robert's rules of order or equivalent). Both branches would have to agree on a policy or program before it would be a TWDC policy or program.
In the absence of a separate branch of TWDC for residents, Tremont needs an independent 501C3 resident’s association. As I understand it, one of the purposes of the Old South Side Community Coalition is to spawn a 501C3 resident’s association. Most of my comments on the proposed TWDC bylaws are meant to be equally applicable to the bylaws of a resident’s association, including those comments that would decentralize power from its board and spread it around to the residents who choose to be active in its committees. The concept of having a separate branch of this association for low-income residents has considerable merit, since their needs and priorities often differ from those with higher incomes. IMHO, the need for low-income residents to speak for themselves might be accomplished by having a separate branch for low-income residents versus other residents, and both would have to agree for an item to be an action of the resident’s association as a whole.
The general requirements for such a structure would need to be defined in the bylaws of the organization, and the gory details in its associated rules and regulations. How having a separate branch for low income versus other residents would translate into a practical program must be defined, along with the role of committees in such a structure. To accomplish this end, I am thinking of a residents association in which:
* Its Board would be administrators (president, vice president, secretary, treasurer) who would be charged with implementing the policies and programs agreed to by both the low-income branch and the higher income branch of the organization.
* The limited income branch and the higher income branch would make decisions separately at meetings or by direct referenda
* Committees would be a mechanism for developing detailed proposed programs and policies that would be presented to both branches of the organization
* Policies and major programs would have to be approved by both the low income and the higher income branches of the residents association to be adopted by the resident’s association as a whole.
* The trustees of the organization would function as a supreme court when disputes concerning how the bylaws apply happen or, as a last resort, when actions absolutely must be taken to preserve the 501C3 status or legal standing of the organization.
* Procedures would need to be defined concerning how one would make the distinction between low income and higher income residents (perhaps based on eligibility for public assistance, such as food give-aways).
The detailed bylaws of such a residents association would need to be defined. Proposing specific changes to specific proposed or actual TWDC bylaws is a mechanism that can be used to start the process of defining the bylaws that would be appropriate for a resident’s association. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
In any event, if we want to change TWDC bylaws for the better, lets review the TWDC Bylaws Committee’s detailed proposal (which is to be modified again soon); and propose the exact wording of specific changes to specific sections of their proposal. Under the existing TWDC bylaws (http://www.tremontwest.org/twdc_bylaws.htm [3] )
“All TWDC Board, committee, and membership meetings shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order when these by-laws do not cover it.”
It is my understanding that Roberts Rules of Order apply to the procedures at the upcoming TWDC membership meeting in November. Given this, specific proposed changes to their proposed bylaws can be presented as amendments to their proposal at this meeting; and, when seconded, would have to be discussed and voted upon, before a vote could be made on the bylaws proposal as a whole. Lets develop some very specific proposed changes to the draft bylaws that we can present and have voted upon at the November meeting, before voting the proposed bylaws (as amended, if applicable) either up or down.
Sincerely,
Larry Cornett