Re: Bylaw amendments
From: Sharon Villines (sharonsharonvillines.com)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 09:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 14, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Pam Gilchrist <pam [at] dtbprojects.com> wrote:

> Laws vary by states, but are there other cohousing communities who would 
> share their experience amending bylaws to insert the consensus process 
> with a fall back voting option?

We have used this from the beginning and not had trouble with it. We do not 
have the process for reaching consensus in the Bylaws but do have the process 
for majority voting. Any member can call for a vote. None ever has. Our bylaws 
are posted at takomavillage.org under documents.

The problem with most clauses that say "within three meetings" is what is a 
"meeting". If a topic appears on the agenda? If it is discussed for more than 
30 minutes? You have resolved this by saying "if consensus cannot be reached 
within three meetings, and the three levels of consensus and closing options 
have been used...." if the same document defines the three levels.

On some of our very difficult issues, like changing the definition of our 
limited common elements, the discussion has gone over several years. If one 
searches our minutes, it isn't always clear that the discussion was 
substantive. One member, for example, has a habit of saying we have discussed 
an item when it appears on an agenda even when the item was cancelled because 
someone didn't show up. Others rely on their own memory. 

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington, DC
Sociocracy, Dynamic Governance, Agile Organization
http://www.sociocracy.info



Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.