Annotated bylaws proposal (2019-02-11)

[Annabelle Backman]

Hello committee members,

Please find attached an update to the bylaws proposal. I've incorporated some of the feedback received from Tara and others. There are also three significant changes in this version:

1. Provisions to allow adoption of rules allowing remote participation.
2. Simplified committee responsibility definitions.
3. Code of Conduct Committee's investigation powers are outlined, then mostly delegated to rules to be proposed and adopted.

Please provide feedback on this update.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

[Tara Gallagher]

--On Remote Participation Systems:

I am not clear what this following section (lines 124-126)  is supposed to cover. Also, a Remote System cannot inform. Either the standing rules do, or the person in charge of the Remote Systems [not specified here] does.

122. Remote participation systems permitted under Standing Rules for Remote Participation shall inform users of any limitations, shortcomings, or substantial differences in experience prior to their use of the system. 

Committee and CoC sections are fine.

Other areas of concern:

—Section 2.2 This most recent draft adds “under the age of 16” to non-voting members, which was never mentioned before and is not an idea I can get behind.

--Section 5.5.1  Is there a reason only Elected PCOs can petition for, and vote on, removal of the chair? Asked this in previous notes; it’s not changed or a discussion point. Appointeds can vote on a replacement chair and petition or vote on removal of other PCO-elected officers. With the general attrition that occurs in elected PCOs during a term, the pool to remove an chair would be smaller than the pool of elected PCOs who voted the chair in at the re-org.

--Section 10.6 lines 569-571 must be removed. It implies that the 43rd does make contributions in single-endorsement races. 

567. In the event that more than one candidate is endorsed, the 43rd

568. 570  District Democrats may not make any monetary campaign contributions to any of the candidates

569. 571  for that office. 

Thanks!

Tara

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "43rd District Democrats Rules and Bylaws Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 43rd-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 43rd-...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CABRLSOt4KvDoECJFZJizaZfNuGSOomt%3DxmcYZoBmnFsHk-sy9A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<Annotated Bylaws Proposal (2019-02-11).pdf>

[Scott Alspach]

2.2 Agree we should remove the under the age of 16 clause.

3.3 "Precinct Coordinator mean an individual who perform some" Perform is of the wrong tense

3.3. line 65:  Missing a period after PCO before "All Precinct Coordinator"

5.1.2 I think the "except for the positions of..." confuses the original point and is unnecessary. There are two State Committee Members and only one individual may hold each of them. The first part covers that as well.

5.2.3, should the deputy treasurer have their own section here?  Also, are they defined anywhere?

5.4.1 "shall elect by majority vote of those present and voting a current Offircer to ac as interim Chair" - We need to specify where this vote must take place if we include the "present" requirement. I would almost just say this needs to be a majority vote period. Otherwise who is calling the meeting where this is voted on and what are the quorom requirements (imagine you need a chair 3 weeks out from a board meeting).

5.4.1 Where did 10.2 go?  I'd also like to keep the language regarding when the special election should happen for both the chair and other officer positions.  This will prevent a Trump cabinet situation where every officer is just a temp appointment by the chair.

5.5.2 It isn't clear to me why the Treasurer is voted in by members but then can only be removed by PCOs. I think we should consider moving the Treasurer to 5.5.3.  It seems like the position where it is most likely to be necessary to remove someone quickly.

6.1 I worry that "It reserves the sole right to represent and act on behalf of the 43rd District Democrats" will be seen as the board asserting too much power, the membership should be guiding these decisions. I also think that representing the 43rd to the public is a duty that falls on the chair, and should potentially be explicitly added.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/23F5CB5C-1F39-4062-83C7-889CC0A2B25C%40tara-jamie.net.

[Annabelle Backman]

Responses inline.

–

Annabelle Backman

Vice Chair for Technology | Washington State 43rd District Democrats

https://www.43rddemocrats.org/

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:08 PM Scott Alspach <salspa...@gmail.com> wrote:

2.2 Agree we should remove the under the age of 16 clause.

[richanna]

Will remove.

[/richanna]

 

3.3 "Precinct Coordinator mean an individual who perform some" Perform is of the wrong tense

3.3. line 65:  Missing a period after PCO before "All Precinct Coordinator"

[richanna]

Will fix.

[/richanna]

 

5.1.2 I think the "except for the positions of..." confuses the original point and is unnecessary. There are two State Committee Members and only one individual may hold each of them. The first part covers that as well.

[richanna]

Will remove.

[/richanna]

 

5.2.3, should the deputy treasurer have their own section here?  Also, are they defined anywhere?

[richanna]

Deputy Treasurer is currently defined under the Treasury Committee, but I don't particularly like that. But they don't have a vote on the Executive Board, so I don't like defining them under it. And since they are appointed rather than elected and aren't an E Board member it seems weird to define them as an officer. I'm open to suggestions here. Do we need a section somewhere for "Other Appointed Positions"?

[/richanna] 

5.4.1 "shall elect by majority vote of those present and voting a current Offircer to ac as interim Chair" - We need to specify where this vote must take place if we include the "present" requirement. I would almost just say this needs to be a majority vote period. Otherwise who is calling the meeting where this is voted on and what are the quorom requirements (imagine you need a chair 3 weeks out from a board meeting).

[richanna]

I think a simple majority is the only practical option, else one officer could block the appointment of any interim Chair. I suggest leaving the rest of the details (such as quorum and how such a vote is to be conducted in between scheduled E Board meetings) to standing rules for the operations of the E Board. Given the extraordinary nature of this event, I don't want to clutter the bylaws too much over it, beyond making sure there's a sane line of succession.

Another option is that we make up a fixed line of succession of officers:

1. Vice Chair
2. Treasurer
3. State Committee Members, by ascending order of election date
4. KCDCC Representatives, by ascending order of election date
5. KCDCC Alternates, by ascending order of election date
6. Elections Chair
7. Membership Chair
8. PCOs Chair
9. Meetings and Events Chair
10. Fundraising Chair
11. Communications Chair
12. Technology Chair
13. Secretary
14. Young Democrats Representative
15. ...KCDCC Chair, I guess?

If we go with this route, I suggest we don't dwell too much on the specific ordering, unless someone has a strong reason why one position should be ahead of another.

[/richanna]

 

5.4.1 Where did 10.2 go?  I'd also like to keep the language regarding when the special election should happen for both the chair and other officer positions.  This will prevent a Trump cabinet situation where every officer is just a temp appointment by the chair.

[richanna]

10.2 was deleted, as it is now covered by 5.3.4 and 5.4.3 (see lines 473-476). I can insert a comment at line 240 noting this.

[/richanna]

5.5.2 It isn't clear to me why the Treasurer is voted in by members but then can only be removed by PCOs. I think we should consider moving the Treasurer to 5.5.3.  It seems like the position where it is most likely to be necessary to remove someone quickly.

[richanna]

Agreed, will change. 

[/richanna]

6.1 I worry that "It reserves the sole right to represent and act on behalf of the 43rd District Democrats" will be seen as the board asserting too much power, the membership should be guiding these decisions. I also think that representing the 43rd to the public is a duty that falls on the chair, and should potentially be explicitly added.

[richanna]

This line is intended to be a counterpart to 2.6 which prohibits members from using titles or identifying themselves as representing the 43rd without authorization. I think it is also necessary to prevent a simple majority of members at a special meeting from spinning up an alternate "administrative body" - unlikely, but not clearly prohibited without something preventing it.

What if we appended something like "with the consent of the membership" to the end of 6.1, to make clear that the E Board doesn't just act on its own?

[/richanna]

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/43rd-bylaws/CA%2B7_OagrRs13JYd8FW%2B3cu%2BJjVoGn5o2yQt%3DF7XBkn7S8o3ShQ%40mail.gmail.com.