contributors to the bylaws, and a culture of making false representation

[Paola Di Maio]

Rami and everyone

I did not keep a record of everyone who made a contribution to the bylaws but you can search the history

of this group for many examples- which include a number of valid points being raised during drafting stage, as well as acknowledgements/replies of such points by individual bylaws WG members.

 Some of these contributions may have been made in the doc itself, some by private email exchanges/

The contributors to the bylaws are not only the few listed at the bottom of the final bylaws document,  and in your email Rami

but those  are listed in version history of the bylaws document - which is not longer accessible/has since been obfuscated from public view

Although I do not have a systematic record   - in my email dated Feb 17 and pasted below for your reference-

I explicitly mention how poor record keeping can

 contribute to the systemic abuse, as many facts can become distorted

It happened

in  the previous institute, contributing, possibly leading to its closure and to the start of a new institute, under new bylaws

but under the same culture of false representation in everyone's face

Giving a distorted *partial account of how the new bylaws came into being is really a very simple of example of how

institutionalized harassment

characterized the RI of recent years. Many suggestions made that point out critical loopholes in the bylaws that could

be

addressed at later stage,  are now no longer visible

for review. Also the google folder containing the Policies and procedures (attached screenshot) is not accessible

 Assuming someone has spotted systemic weaknesses in the current bylaws, and made a note of

the legal vulnerabilities, for future reference and future discussion. these notes have now disappeared from view

Just looking through my notes, purely as your reference,

several of the points  I myself brought up since the draft was first shared last Feb   have subsequently  been addressed accordingly

 *I also have several emails responses etc

*record keeping IS so tedious

including my question to this list:

see my email to this group  Feb 21

this question was not answered however  , but now I can see this point has been included in the bylaws with an additional clause *Section 8 reported below

See also the notes pasted again below, to refresh yo memory

Other people may have kept a note of their own contributions as well. I remember Thomas B, Judith, Vesselin and possibly others listed in doc

I hope you can see the systemic aberration taking place in plain sight

 *the value of truth is clearly asserted in the bylaws *mostly rhetorical,

 and then the clear omission/false statement/misrepresentation in the list of contributors of the bylaws document, that does not correspond to fact-

This is just an example of how things start to go wrong, and need to be identified and addressed

at this early stage

Also slack has a limited free version btw

Section 8 — Vacancies:  

If a vacancy on the Council occurs mid-term, but the total number of Councilors remains above 5, the vacancy will be filled at the next annual election. If the vacancy would reduce the number of Councilors below the minimum number, then the secretary must receive nominations for new officers. These nominations shall be voted upon at the next Fellow meeting if it will occur in less than four months, or at a special meeting to be called for the election within four months, whichever is earlier.

If there is a vacancy for an Officer position, the Council shall appoint a qualified Councilor to fill the Officer position as soon as feasible.

This section was not in the bylaws when I first reviewed them and raised the point

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: paolad...@gmail.com <paolad...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Subject: Initial thoughts on Bylaws, questions and discussion *long
To: Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship <ronin-s...@googlegroups.com>

S

So glad that we are keeping the name

WARNING *long and tedious but needs attention

Thank you again to the Bylaws committee for drafting

Here is the URL again

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KY8E_xia5vTVfBBLVGmcUW2ncPZi0btc8YHty0Pm8E4/edit?tab=t.0

I have read them today after a long time. and made a few edits/comments

I plan to read them again, hopefully before the end of the month

In the meantime, some comments below

These are not offered as criticism, just for discussion and filling gaps

We should definitely look ahead, but we should be aware of what went wrong

and avoid making the same mistakes, starting from the bylaws

The bylaws however solid, will not be able to cover the stuff that people are doing

under the radar.

In principle, the bylaws reflect quite well the results of the survey.

The membership requirement is now amended to some equivalence of academic qualification however the notion of equivalence remains still fuzzy and arbitrary I personally would like to see scholars who do not have academic qualifications and do not maintain a record of scholarly publications to produce some other kind of open contribution (talks or posters as a testament of ongoing scholarship)

One of the problem in the old Ronin is that WG made spurious decisions arbitrarily and used the do-ocracy thing to apply for funding that disappeared - there is no record of who these people were, what they did, when and how. 

Yet, the shadow of wrongdoing and mismanagement falls on all Ronin Scholars, this is unfair especially to those who contributed as volunteers, who never gained a single penny from their affiliation

and those who suffered abuse and a bad name without having any recourse.

RI did not keep record of decisions were made and if there was any consensus

reached. Quite the contrary, many meetings were held without notice, or at short notice, and fictitious records were kept, or people attending meeting were not given the chance to contribute to the decision making process. Because consensus was only on paper

The challenge is to make sure that these bylaws reflect the intended values *stated in the bylaws themselves  and to make sure that we create clear governance framework without creating unnecessary red tape.

Glad to note is that there is an explicit reference to the values *empathy, transparency and consensus in several paragraphs

However, I am not sure the bylaws are ensuring sufficiently that these important values  principles it seeks to uphold, especially the virtues and consensus process, are implemented. It is not enough to state that we conduct the business based on consensus  when scholars are not informed, nor invited to participate in the consensus process and there is NO RECORD for example of who is electing the interim committee:

There is nothing in the bylaws that says for example about record keeping for good  management and communication

The bylaws could include a clear statement that RIIS is going to KEEP RECORD

of all decisions, its representatives make. and that there will be a clear communication policy for the same.   It should not befall on any particular individual volunteer/committee member to make decisions and communicate them. There should be a clearly agreed consensus process included o the bylaws, which should be recorded and communicated.

Many volunteers during the last 4  years - since I joined - were going in and out of committees as if going through revolving doors. Something was wrong.

There are clear legal provisions that prohibit WORKPLACE HOSTILITY

yet, many volunteers over the years have been subjected to hostile treatment

There is no record was held of complaints and how these complaints were managed

*which led to bigger complaints, which were also swept under the carpet;

In addition, the bylaws defer much the governance framework to Policy and Procedures

which are not included in the bylaws themselves

should there be a schedule of such policies and procedures?

should be at a minimum a mention as to   how these are drafted/maintained/monitored?

if all the work is going to be done by WG volunteers, then the bylaws could at a minimum

Ensure the intended values are going to be reflected in the WG governance

Through diligent record keeping

I have turned on the line numbering for the document - so that each individual point to be revised can be identified with a line number, and I have entered some comments

I plant to continue to add comments and suggestions in the bylaws draft

until consensus is reached and the draft finalized, hopefully we would be given a date for that?

------------------------------------------------
See  comments added and More random notes below

Rercordkeeping
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/recordkeeping-requirements

In addition to the obvious financial records, which are well understood and dealt with by certified accountant management records to ensure good governance are not so well understood nor regulated


Add reference to: Provisions to avoid Deliberately Hostile Work Environment
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-harassment-workplace#_Toc164808022

Characteristics of a Toxic Work Environment
 Lack of Effective Communication, High Turnover rate and Harassment

High Turnover of volunteers, and volunteers becoming estranged and abandoning their
commitment without being able to state a clear reason

So for example one volunteer may not be a good communicator, or could be unable to communicate
or busy with other work, but the Institute should have a clear communication procedure
to make sure the members/fellows do not feel mistreated or become demotivated because of the lack of communication

-------------------------------------------------

RECORD KEEPING
What are corporate records? Management, compliance & ...
https://www.diligent.com › resources › blog › what-cor...
In addition to the meeting minutes, which other records should RIIS keep so that it can be managed transparently and accountably?

For example:
a record of all decision *who has nominated the interim committee member? when?by whom? who has been informed
has there been any meeting? who was invited? where are the minutes? how have these being communicated?

In section  Membership: should the membership approval process and timeframe be included? Say for example that new members applications are processed quarterly, also a record can be kept of all applications received *via shared google docs?

Section 4— Rules of Order:
Should any question of parliamentary procedure arise at any meeting of the Members, the  Policies and Procedures shall govern, insofar as such rules are not inconsistent with or in conflict with the articles of incorporation, these bylaws, or with provisions of law.   WHAT IS THE REFERENCE THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FOR?


In section 5 there is a mention to Policy and Procedures?
where are these? are they part of the Bylaws?
if they are a separate document, what is the process for their drafting approval implementation and subsequent modification?
Ref https://nonprofitopspro.com/bylaws-vs-policies-and-procedures/


SUGGEST DELETION
There is no term limit on serving as a Councillor. BECAUSE THIS STATEMENT SEEMS TO CONTRADICT THE TERM DURATION OF 36 MONTHS
THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE OUTGOING COUNCILLORS ARE SELECTED BY WHOM AND WHEN
out of 12 councillors. who is going out? on what basis ?

RECORD KEEPING
line 244

all candidates should submit a form that must be recorded and auditable. in previous administration there was no record kept about who submitted their candidature, or complaints or even general concerns

CONSENSUS
Section 7 — Consensus Decision-Making:
THIS SHOULD BE COMPLEMENTED BY A CLEAR COMMUNICATION POLICY AND PROCEDURE
SO THAT ALL VOTING SCHOLARS CAN BE INFORMED AND ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CONSENSUS
PROCESS, WITHOUT BEING INFORMED THERE CANNOT BE ANY PARTICIPATION IN CONSENSUS

--
This discussion group is low traffic, and intended to serve polite informed and to the point discussions to a broad community of independent scholars on topics of general interest It is generally unmoderated, but may occasionally tuned to moderated when the list becomes overwhelmed . Please be mindful and aware that your message may be relevant only to few members *when accepting an invitation to a meeting or LT for example, send your replies and notifications only to the organisers rather than to the whole list. But if a post of general interest is not distributed within 48 hours or so, either the moderators are away, or it was caught by some filter. Please alert the managers. Keep in touch with others also using Ronin Slack and Discord channels by contacting administrators.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ronin Institute for Independent Scholarship" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ronin-scholar...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ronin-scholars/175fa96a-b609-453d-9b87-52c67b40444cn%40googlegroups.com.