Fwd: [DSNC] Bylaws committee

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Kendra Fox

unread,
Jun 1, 2026, 6:25:21 PMJun 1
to dsnc-di...@googlegroups.com


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: conor <co...@pjryans.com>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 at 4:32:10 PM UTC-4
Subject: Re: [DSNC] Bylaws committee
To: e...@woll.us <e...@woll.us>
Cc: alex.d...@gmail.com <al...@dehnerts.com>, DSNC <daviss...@googlegroups.com>, ashres...@gmail.com <ashres...@gmail.com>


Is this meeting on Wednesday Zoom or in person?


Conor Brennan


Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 1, 2026, at 3:40 PM, Edward Woll <e...@woll.us> wrote:

I will be there also by zoom. I gather there is no in person gathering.

I think separating out the quorum issue is important and will be useful.  We should go through a number of scenarios.

Ed Woll

On May 31, 2026, at 9:38 PM, Alex Dehnert <al...@dehnerts.com> wrote:

Looking at the people who filled out the when2meet and those who are participating in this thread, there doesn't seem to be much overlap, which makes changes to the quorum requirement seem like a somewhat poor choice for Wednesday. Are there people who are planning to come who feel prepared to discuss it? (Presumably who either haven't chimed in on the thread yet or who didn't fill out the when2meet, or both.)


On May 31, 2026 9:11:07 PM EDT, Ashish Shrestha <ashres...@gmail.com> wrote:
As an aside, discussing Amendment 45 which is the quorum amendment.  I've included the full text of the amendment at the end of the email for quick reference.

The second paragraph of Amendment 45 proposes essentially a re-vote system whereby members can request an electronic vote for things voted on in-person during a meeting.  I'm requesting input from those familiar with our OpaVote system or involved in the most recent election, in order to understand if this is feasible from an organization and labor perspective.  We are an all-volunteer organization, so I'm curious whether putting together a vote like this very quickly is trivial or would be prone to delays.

If it is feasible, I'd like to propose splitting this off into a separate amendment.  I believe it proposes effectively an alternate solution to the problem that quorum requirements attempt to solve, i.e. it makes it impossible to push controversial decisions through without input from the broader community by instead dropping the barrier-to-entry for community input.  I think this is generally a better solution as it allows for low-interest items to make it through without risk of being stopped due to apathy.

Text of Proposed Amendment 45:
Replace Section 6.6 Quorum with the following:

 

Five percent of the number of active members of the DSNC shall constitute a quorum. Votes may be taken at a DSNC meeting if a quorum is present (counting both online and in-person attendees).

 

The results of in-meeting votes (other than procedural motions) shall be posted to the email list and DSNC website within five days after each meeting. After the results are posted, members shall have seven days to request that any issue be reconsidered by the full membership via an electronic vote (using tools similar to the ones used for DSNC elections). Such requests may be sent by email to the DSNC officers or to the email list. If at least ten members request that a particular issue be reconsidered via electronic re-vote, the re-vote shall occur and shall override the results of the in-meeting vote; otherwise, the results of the in-meeting vote shall stand. Electronic re-votes shall be announced and held as soon as is practical after the required number of requests is reached, and voting shall be open for a period determined by the officers that is no less than seven days and no more than thirty days.


On Sunday, May 31, 2026 at 8:37:43 PM UTC-4 clahey wrote:
The rule I tried to bring from another organization I was in was 50% of the average is the last 3 meetings. This is self correcting in a quarter and has a lot of wiggle room. It does mean if you have one or two giant meetings, you fail to reach work for the next 3 meetings.

We could also include a cap. We could make it 50% of our recent average or 25, whichever is smaller. Or take 50% of the median of the last 3 meetings. Then as soon as you have 2 small meetings, you're set, and if you only have one giant meeting, it's never a problem. I actually like that quite a bit. 

Yeah, 50% of the median of the last 3 meetings sounds like a good balance.

On Sun, May 31, 2026, 19:37 Colin McMillen <co...@mcmillen.dev> wrote:
"Self correcting annually" is way too slow. Being unable to do any official business for a year would be disastrous.

(I'm also unaware of any other bodies that with this way. We don't set City Council or town meeting quorums based on how many people voted in the last election.)

On Sun, May 31, 2026, at 4:05 PM, 'JOSIAH AUSPITZ' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council wrote:
All,
 
Basing the quorum on the most recent DSNC annual election turnout is self-correcting annually.  In the event of shrinking interest in the DSNC, this will be reflected in lower turnout and thus a lower quorum requirement.  For example, the 2025 quorum would have been geared to the 166 votes cast-- for a 25-person quorum, as opposed to the 60+ number for 2026.
 
Bear in mind that the only externally directed voting matter that "counts" for purposes authorized by the City is approving a negotiated community benefit agreement supported by an inclusive, fully representative cross-section of the neighborhood.  Anything beyond that is purely advisory to the relevant City agencies, or internally to  the DSNC itself. 
 
It is, of course, possible-- though in my view not desirable--to set a different quorum level for specialized issues like that upcoming on June 3 on the Elmway Committee's work.  But here, too, for the very reasons Colin cites, it is more prudent to tie the level to an annually adjusted number rather than to a permanent number plucked out of thin air.
 
As we all understand, the purpose of such measures as quorums, due notice, advance filing of agendas, super majorities etc. is to prevent a narrow rump of insiders from running away with the show-- a result contrary to the authorizing City ordinance.
 
Lee Auspitz
 
 
I'd advise against setting the quorum requirement too high. "Inability to meet quorum" is a common cause of nonprofits failing. It's a one-way ratchet because you can always vote to *increase* quorum when you have strong attendance, but if you don't have the critical mass to achieve quorum, you can't ever vote to *decrease* quorum and the org fails to be able to conduct any business at all.
 
I agree that the current number is far too low but something like 15-20 would be much more reasonable. I'd hesitate to project future attendance based on current trends; if the Copper Mill folks suddenly packed up and left, I suspect DSNC attendance would decline significantly because there wouldn't be nearly as much short-term controversy driving people to attend meetings.
 
On Sun, May 31, 2026, at 10:14 AM, 'jlau...@comcast.net' via Davis Square Neighborhood Council wrote:
Alan,
 
At the April general meeting the attendees gave unanimous consent to breaking out the quorum issue as a separate item.  The problem deserves the highest priority before any new votes on the bylaws are taken.
 
The current quorum number is eight members, which can be manipulated to give the nine-member executive board the right to act independently of the council membership on all matters-- or even used to give a clique of five executive members unfettered authority.
 
The most natural approach is to tie the quorum to a percentage of the vote for officers in the previous general election.  Fifteen percent (15%) seems a natural requirement, as it represents the rounded-up one-seventh threshold under the single transferable vote method for election of the seven board members, excluding the president and vice president.  This year the quorum would be 60-odd members, which has, I believe, been achieved in our recent meetings.
 
Lee Auspitz
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________________
Josiah Lee Auspitz
Landline phone: 617-628-6228 fax: 617-628-9441
Phones do not receive text messages
 

From: dsnc-...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Dehnert <al...@dehnerts.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2026 9:42 PM
To: dsnc-...@googlegroups.com <dsnc-...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Bylaws committee
 
Let's meet at *3pm Wednesday* on Zoom[2] -- of our five responses, we
can't get everyone at any time, but at least this gets us four people.
 
Please let me know by tomorrow evening if anybody has amendments[1] they
would particularly like us to discuss or not discuss this week. ("I care
a lot about amendment X, but can't make this Wednesday" is a fine reason
to ask for an amendment to not be prioritized.)
 
I'll aim to get an ordered list of amendments to discuss out before the
meeting.
 
~~Alex
 
[1]
 
[2] Alex Dehnert is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
 
Topic: DSNC bylaws
Time: Jun 3, 2026 03:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)
 
Join Zoom Meeting
 
Password: 413161
 
One tap mobile
+16465588656,,97942229454# US (New York)
+16699006833,,97942229454# US (San Jose)
 
Meeting ID: 979 4222 9454
 
 
International Numbers: https://mit.zoom.us/u/aezMG9cLvn
 
Join by SIP
 
Join by Skype for Business
 
 
On 5/27/26 02:01, Alex Dehnert wrote:
> Hi folks,
>     Reminder to fill out https://www.when2meet.com/?36794724-POn5G if
> you want to discuss bylaws.
>
> ~~Alex
>
> On 5/21/26 01:23, Alex Dehnert wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>     I've made a new bylaws committee mailing list. You've all
>> indicated some form of interest in bylaws in the past, so I've added
>> you to the list (hence getting this email) -- if you're no longer
>> interested, you can of course leave.
>>
>> As I mentioned at Monday's meeting, here's my plan going forward:
>> - Encourage folks who are interested to join the list
>> - Schedule some meetings (see link at the end) for discussing the
>> various proposals (my inclination is to do this over Zoom)
>> - Starting next meeting, submit amendments to start the one month clock
>> - Provide to the membership with each proposed amendment a brief
>> argument in favor and (for any controversial amendments) an argument
>> against adopting the amendment
>> - Encourage discussion on dsnc-discussions before the meeting --
>> ideally by the time we're voting on the amendments, people feel like
>> they've heard the arguments and had a chance to discuss, and we'll
>> need less time in the meeting
>> - Vote at subsequent meetings (so no earlier than the end-of-July
>> meeting)
>>
>> The doc from the earlier bylaw effort is at https://docs.google.com/
>> document/d/1Ka6Ddd9P1tBYfsmp2MkZi2l1mqGysh2XaahwzfZBkJQ/edit?
>> tab=t.izkv334psuap#heading=h.q8gja1h8rcea -- I'll be working from that
>> to guide our discussion.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether we'll be able to get through the everything in
>> the first month (much less the first meeting), so if anyone has
>> thoughts on which proposals to prioritize, let me know. I'll put out
>> an agenda before our first meeting.
>>
>> As to meeting time: If you'd like to attend a meeting, please fill out
>> https://www.when2meet.com/?36794724-POn5G soon. I might start thinking
>> about scheduling on Friday, depending on response rate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>
>
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "dsnc-bylaws" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dsnc-bylaws...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
 


--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.


--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.


--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/davissquarenc/EEC8DD0B-A383-4A19-A77F-AFDF7526EA96%40dehnerts.com.

--
Davis Square Neighborhood Council · https://DavisSquareNC.org · https://linktr.ee/DavisSquareNC
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Davis Square Neighborhood Council" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to davissquaren...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages