Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: bylaws-active vs inactive status

[Chris Roth - Communities Editor (editor]

Hi Judith,

In the non-cohousing community in which I'm a member, certain benefits 
come from being active, that aren't available when inactive, and there 
are also community processes for addressing excessively low levels of 
participation that haven't been agreed upon in advance--but the model is 
different.

Mostly I want to observe that to me the language in your bylaws sounds 
perfectly adequate to the occasion, and accurate, even if not very 
specific, since those bylaws were written at a time when the community 
didn't yet know what terms it wanted to set for inactive status, and 
wanted the flexibility to decide that when the occasion arose. The 
bylaws still give the community the power to set the terms--there was 
always going to be a "first time" that it decided to do so, that was not 
going to have a "precedent."

It sounds as if what some long-term members are saying is that they 
actually think the terms for inactive households should be no different 
than for active households--and this in itself would be a decision, 
applicable at least in this individual case and possibly (if "precedent" 
by default overrides the flexibility currently allowed in your bylaws, 
or if the community agrees now that it never wants terms) as a more 
enduring decision applying to all households on inactive status.

As a general observation: if every decision had to have a "precedent" 
then no decision could ever be made in an area that had not been decided 
upon or acted upon before. It seems as if the bylaws were specifically 
written to ALLOW a decision to be made once the community was ready to 
do so. Again, judging from the description you give, it seems those not 
wanting to set terms here, on the grounds of "no precedent," are in 
effect saying the decision they want is "no terms," which in itself is a 
decision allowed by the bylaws but which, if formalized and made 
permanent, might make the current bylaws language meaningless and 
unnecessary. It doesn't seem as if that's what the creators of those 
bylaws had in mind--in other words, there's "precedent" for thinking 
that the community might want to set "terms"--but if it's the current 
sentiment and is not going to change, then the bylaws could be changed 
to omit that language.

Hope this outsider reflection may be helpful,

Chris

On 10/22/2022 6:16 AM, cohousing-l-request [at] cohousing.org wrote
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 16:26:18 +0000 (UTC)
> From: "lienjud [at] aol.com" <lienjud [at] aol.com>
> To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Subject: [C-L]_ bylaws-active vs inactive status
>
> dear cohousing communities:
> I live at Cascadia Commons in Portland, and we might be facing a consensus 
> decision where a household is asking for inactive status indefinitely and this 
> household is not planning on leaving. They have not attended community/HOA 
> meeting for the last 8 months.?
> In preparation for this, I looked at our bylaws and it mentions active/inactive 
> status and gives no definition for it. We have had households go on inactive 
> status for health reasons, life changes, plans for moving out etc. There is 
> vague language in our bylaws saying the community can decide the terms. So, 
> some long-time members are saying that we have never set terms so there is no 
> precedent for this household possibly being assessed $ or facing restrictions.?
> I would wish for this vague language to be removed from our bylaws as it is 
> meaningless and false advertising to potentially new members.?
> Curious how things look in other communities. thanks for any information.?
> Judith Lienhard

--
Chris Roth
Editor, Communities
81868 Lost Valley Lane
Dexter, OR 97431
editor [at] gen-us.net
541-937-5221
gen-us.net/communities