Re: Bylaw amendments | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
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
-
Bylaw amendments Pam Gilchrist, April 14 2013
- Re: Bylaw amendments Sharon Villines, April 14 2013
- Re: Bylaw amendments John Carver, April 14 2013
- Re: Bylaw amendments Willow Murphy, April 14 2013
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.