Proposed Changes to the GRVNC Bylaws
GRVNC Bylaws Committee
Chair - LJ Carusone
0
WHY?
Resolving Competing Bylaws Changes!
•
•
•
In 2004, two sets of separate and competing bylaws changes - one
initiated by stakeholders, the other initiated by the GRVNC board were submitted to DONE for approval. When GRVNC lost its quorum
in November, 2004, DONE chose to hold on to the bylaws changes
until GRVNC held a new election and regained it’s quorum.
On December 12, 2005, representatives from DONE met with the
Bylaws Committee. DONE communicated that it intended to approve
all the submitted bylaws changes that did not violate the “Plan for a
Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils” (aka “The Plan”)
regardless of conflicting language or intent.
If enacted, the conflicting bylaws would not immediately prevent the
GRVNC Board from functioning, but unresolved conflicts over such
basic issues as stakeholder definition and eligibility requirements for
voting would prevent it from conducting another election.
1
WHY?
Resolving Competing Bylaws Changes!
•
•
•
•
However, DONE representatives did offer GRVNC a way out of this
mess. They would hold off on enacting the competing bylaws if
GRVNC agreed to produce a third set that would resolve these
conflicts.
It was agreed then that GRVNC would submit a new set of resolving
bylaws to DONE in the Spring, in time to prepare for the next election.
In order to allow enough time to complete this work, the Bylaws
Committee, by unanimous consent, voted to ask the Board to make
one bylaws change immediately - to change the month of the annual
election for the Board of officers from June to September.
In December, the GRVNC Board voted to make the bylaws change. In
January, stakeholders ratified the Board’s vote and it was submitted to
DONE.
2
Background and Process
The Committee
•
•
•
In October, 2005, GRVNC formed an ad-hoc committee to address
issues and concerns with the existing GRVNC bylaws.
It’s mission, the “preparation of GRVNC bylaws changes for
consideration of GRVNC Board approval and submission to DONE for
ratification”.
In November, 2005 GRVNC appointed Government Relations Officer
LJ Carusone to Chair the Bylaws Committee.
3
Background and Process
Committee Process
•
•
•
•
The Committee established goals and priorities at its first two sessions
The Chair received input from Committee members and created
Agendas for each session of the Committee
The Chair then posted the Agenda to each of its members, to the
GRVNC.org website, the physical posting at the Vera Davis Center,
and to a Yahoo group set up for that purpose.
Additionally, the Communications Chair posted meeting dates and
times with the Argonaut and Venice Paper.
4
Background and Process
Committee Process
•
•
•
•
The Committee determined from the outset that a roundtable
discussion format was the best way to encourage consensus and
public comment.
All bylaws proposals have been thoroughly discussed by the
Committee before voting on any recommendation.
The Committee was extremely cognizant of public input, and let any
members of the public attending the meetings speak without regard to
time constraints.
No votes were taken until it was evident that at least a general, if not
unanimous, consensus had been reached.
5
GOALS
1.
More diversity on the GRVNC Board
2.
Empower stakeholders
3.
Improve outreach and encourage stakeholder participation and
involvement
4.
Minimize slate politics
5.
Encourage independent candidates
6.
Streamline and simplify bylaws
7.
Improve and empower committees
8.
Improve Board efficiency
6
Bylaws Committee Proposals
For Venice Neighborhood
Council Voting
Prepared For
Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council
February 2006
What We Have Now: The Current System
21 Members
7 Officers elected at-large
7 Members elected at-large
7 Members elected from Districts
Stakeholders have 15 votes:
14 At-large seats
1 District seat (they choose
the district seat)
Potential Advantages:
• Provides mix of at-large and district (geographic)
representation
• Requires no Bylaws change
Disadvantages:
• Allows slates to form super majority control
• Districts are unequal in population
• Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census)
• Districts are too large for effective outreach
8
7 Districts - 2 Reps Per District
21 Members
Stakeholders have 8 votes:
7 Officers elected at-large
7 At-large votes (Officers) +
14 Members elected from 7 Districts 1 District seat (address-based)
Potential Advantages:
• Somewhat more difficult for slates to form super majority
control
• Some increased potential for outreach
• Preserves geographic representation
Disadvantages:
• Allows slates to form majority control
• Districts are unequal in population
• Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census)
• Districts are still too large for effective outreach
• No defined division of responsibility or accountability
between the two representatives in the same district
9
14 Districts – 1 Rep Per District
21 Members
7 Officers elected at-large
14 Members elected from Districts
Stakeholders have 8 votes:
7 At-large votes (Officers) +
1 District seat (address-based)
Potential Advantages:
• Creates representation from smaller neighborhoods
• Makes it easier for members to do outreach
• Accountability to geographically-defined district
• Somewhat less susceptible to slate control
Disadvantages:
• Slates can still form super majority control
• Districts are unequal in population
• Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census)
• District boundaries are difficult to draw
10
Recommended Proposal: All At-Large System
21 Members
7 Officers elected at-large
14 Members elected at-large
Stakeholders have 8 votes:
8 At-large votes (7 Officers +
1 at-large member)
Potential Advantages:
• Least susceptible to slates gaining majority control
• Community-wide interests may be more likely to be
represented (not just geo- or district-based)
• No issues with drawing district boundaries
• No issues with balancing population among districts
Disadvantages:
• Some neighborhoods may not have a local representative
to go to with an issue
• Narrow or singular interests may be more represented
• Interests may be so diverse to make consensus difficult 11
Bylaws Committee Proposal Comparison And Recommendation
14 Districts – 1 Rep Per
District
7 Districts - 2 Reps
Per District
Advantages:
•
•
•
Somewhat more difficult
for slates to form super
majority control
Preserves geographic
representation
Some increased potential
for outreach
Disadvantages:
•
•
•
•
•
Allows slates to form
majority control
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
Somewhat less
susceptible to slate control
Creates representation
from smaller
neighborhoods
Smaller districts make it
easier for members to do
outreach
Accountability to
geographically-defined
district
Districts are unequal in
population
Recommended:
All At-Large
Advantages:
•
•
•
•
Least susceptible to slates
gaining majority control
Community-wide interests
may be more likely to be
represented (not just geoor district-based)
No issues with drawing
district boundaries
No issue with balancing
population among districts
Disadvantages:
Major redistricting may be
required in 2011 (next Census)
Disadvantages:
Districts are still too large
for effective outreach
•
No defined division of
responsibility or
accountability between the
two representatives from
the same district
•
•
•
•
Slates can still form super
majority control
Districts are unequal in
population
Major redistricting may be
required in 2011 (next Census)
District boundaries are
difficult to draw
•
•
Some neighborhoods may
not have a local
representative on the Board
Narrow or singular interests
may be more represented
Interests may be so diverse
to make consensus difficult
12