The legislation on non-profits currently in force tries to 1) protect the
organization from the one issue, one shot participants who will come to vote
on one issue and will never be seen again, and 2) to protect the community
from having a small group organize itself into an association, declare that
membership is defined by living in a geographic area, and speak for the
community without allowing them much of a voice.
The problem for volunteer neighborhood organizations is trying to encourage
and embrace the full range of community voices without compromising the
integrity of both the organization and the well being of the neighborhood by
the "one-issue, one meeting" people. The problem for citizens is keeping
such organizations honest by making them go public with everything so they
know what's going on and have meaningful input.
In my neighborhood, people are allowed to vote by mail. I am not aware of
any procedure whereby signatures are checked against a list of signatures on
file. If there was a master list of signatures, who would do the checking,
and who would know if those folks still live at their address? Lots of room
for mischief.
Does the new legislation get at these issues? Can a solution to them be
legislated? Dunno.
The bill should state a list of either/or options for meeting notification:
1) publish it in a monthly newsletter or flyer for the neighborhood, or 2)
publish it in a community newspaper. If people don't pay attention to these
options, why would they read a posting at the local school? Under the
proposed legislation, not posting notices in a local school would be
breaking the law. What are the consequences? What board members want that
hanging around their necks?
The bill's statement that "proof of being employed by a nonprofit
organization or government entity" within the neighborhood boundaries
implies that for-profits or other "entities" are excluded. Is that the
intent? In fact, why would a "government entity" be allowed to vote in a
neighborhood organization? It would be better stated that "others listed as
eligible in the organization's bylaws will be required to show proof of
eligibility as determined by the organization" or some such.
If it wasn't for our hawk eye list manager, who would know about this? If
neighborhood activists want to change the current law, why would they go to
Bob Miller, head honcho of NRP, to help draft a bill rather than soliciting
responses from other neighborhood activists first? Conflict of interest
comes to mind. I have a problem anytime the bureaucrats get involved in
drafting legislation FOR us rather than WITH us.
Aside from the legislation, I have a concern regarding who is eligible to
vote. Should those who work in the neighborhood be eligible to vote in
neighborhood elections or on neighborhood issues? This may be a concern only
in neighborhoods with industrial or large office or retail properties. How
many "eligible" people could vote from Honeywell, NSP, Rainbow or Target?
Talk about packing the room. Employees could show up and sweep boards out of
office or vote against plans if their parking is threatened.
The current legislation governing non-profits may not be perfect, but before
we get behind something else, let's give it wide discussion and seek input
from more of those in the trenches.
Fran Guminga
Bottineau, Ward 3
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * *
F. Guminga
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
