Steve Cross wrote:
> The statement "I doubt that this would hold up in court" might lead some
> to conclude that somehow PPERRIA really is dodging the requirements of
> the Data Practices Act.
>
It is Mr. Cross' conjecture that you might conclude that PPERRIA is dodging the
Data Practices Act, not mine. I have stated that I believe that they are
-subject- to the Data Practices Act, not that they are dodging it. Some individuals
did have trouble getting copies of documents they legally had access to under the
Nonprofit Corporation Act (Chapter 317A), but this was under the previous PPERRIA
president.
> It is the pet theory of the author that when the government contracts
> with any organization, then that organization becomes government and is
> subject to all the laws regulating government. The reader might want to
> hear the argument of someone other than a non-lawyer about why there is
> any basis other than wishful thinking for that conclusion.
>
It is true that I am a non-lawyer, but in the process of my having to deal
with my neighborhood organization I've had to learn more about the law
than I ever expected to. Part of this problem was necessitated by dealing with
with Mr. Cross, who unlike me, is an attorney. In forming my opinion
about the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act I have talked
to a number of lawyers, including a consultation with one of the best
Constitutional Law lawyers in the City.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The same kind of process happened with our NRP contractor when
> > they were faced with serious opposition. First they changed the
> > grievance policy,
>
> The statement "changed the grievance policy" might lead some to
> erroneously conclude that PPERRIA did awful thing to that policy.
>
> Yes, PPERRIA did change the grievance policy. One member pointed out
> that our grievance policy had not been amended since it was adopted
> years before. The policy referred to hearing before a committee that no
> longer existed by that name. Assurances that the successor committee
> would perform the function were not acceptable. The grievance policy was
> amended to use the name of the successor body.
One thing that you should realize is that even PPERRIA's previous grievance
policy was totally worthless, they just made it even worse. Both grievance
policies make outside mediation an option only to PPERRIA, not the
grievance, "...the Executive Committee may request outside assistance
with mediation..." Notice the word, "may," they are not required to.
Thus, your grievance is, in effect, being adjudicated by the defendant,
who must rule against their own actions if your grievance is to be
sustained.
Once a grievance is rejected by your local NRP contractor you can
appeal to the NRP itself, but...you must agree "...to follow these
grievance procedures and accept the decision of the Policy Board
Implementation Committee." In other words, to go forward with
a grievance you must surrender your right of judicial review, i.e.,
you must, "accept the decision of the Policy Board." Once again,
your grievance is being adjudicated by the defendant, who must rule
against the actions of its own contractor if your grievance is to be
sustained.
But I have not yet dealt with how they changed, the grievance policy.
The original grievance policy stated that:
"The grievance process is available to any individual who is
associated with the neighborhood in such a way as to be
affected by the decision making process and who feels there
has been a procedure followed by the Steering Committee
which is inconsistent with the basic principles of open,
democratic decision-making or which as had an adverse
effect on them."
The new grievance policy omits, "...or which as had an adverse
effect on them." What this means is that if the PPERRIA
Board of Directors has openly voted on a motion, it doesn't
matter if it's had an adverse effect on you, you're just out of
luck and cannot use the grievance policy. I believe this to be
more restrictive than the original grievance policy.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > and eliminated
> > the right of members to approve future bylaw changes.
>
> The statement "eliminated the right of the members" might lead some to
> conclude that PPERRIA members have no rights regarding the bylaws.
> The bylaws read, "any vote at a regular or special membership meeting is
> conclusively presumed to be that of the Board of Directors." This is a
> reasonably artful way to ensure that the members do decide on bylaws and
> get around the provision of Minnesota Statutes, section 317A.181,
> subdivision 2, that provides that, "the power ... to amend ... the
> bylaws is vested in the board".
>
What Mr. Cross does not mention is the escape clause. This started
with the special meeting. When we were about to vote on the motion
to reconsider support for the lighting project someone requested that
there be a separate vote of the Board of Directors. Previously, issues
were decided by a vote of the membership, not the Board. At the
time I challenged this and Mr. Cross who was then acting as parliamentarian,
told the (then) president, that he thought there was no justification for
separating the vote; she overruled him at that time.
When they changed the bylaws, they formalized a way for the board
to overrule any decision made by regular members:
"The result of any vote at a regular or special membership meeting
is conclusively presumed to be that of the Board of Directors
unless, before the voting result is announced, three members of the
Board request that the vote of the Board members be recorded
separately from the membership. When the Board members vote
is recorded separately from that of the members, the vote of the
Board prevails."
"...the vote of the Board prevails." In other words any time the
board wants to block an action by the membership they can.
Mr. Cross neglected to include this in his reply to my post.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Another
> > change also gave the board the right to change the bylaws at any
> > time (previously they could only be changed annually).
>
> The statement "previously they could only be changed annually" might
> lead some to conclude that somehow the door was opened to mischief.
>
> The former bylaws, Article VII, provided that amendments could be voted
> on, "at the regular meeting...."
>
Yes, Mr. Cross, the former bylaws provided that amendments could be voted
on at a regular meeting, but you failed to mention that the previous bylaws
required that: "By-law amendments effected during the regular business
year shall be submitted to the corporation at its Annual Meeting for
ratification." Mr. Cross, failed to mention that the new by-laws eliminated
the right of the membership to approve changes in the by-laws. As it stands
now the bylaws, "may be amended at any time and in any manner." So,
if the Board has failed to cover any of their bases and left an opening for
true democratic change, they can fix their error on the fly.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > then they changed the bylaws. In part, the
> > changes to the bylaws: restricted membership
>
> The statement "restricted membership" might lead some to conclude that
> PPERRIA membership is limited to cognoscente.
>
> With the construction of University Village, PPERRIA had a university
> dormitory within the neighborhood for the first time. Almost 1,000
> students lived there during the school year. In response, a change was
> made to say that membership was open to "permanent" residents of the
> neighborhood. PPERRIA is an open organization and any permanent
> resident can and do join. The word "permanent" would not include
> dormitory students who, by their nature, live here for only the 9-month
> school year. Students living in homes and apartments in the neighborhood
> can and do join -- including the complainant himself.
I would like to remind you of the wording of the NRP Statute:
"The neighborhoods must include the participation of, whenever possible,
all populations and interests in each neighborhood including renters,
homeowners, people of color, business owners, representative of
neighborhood institutions, youth, and the elderly."
"...All populations and interests in each neighborhood..." By what right
does PPERRIA exclude students, just because "by their nature" they only
live in the neighborhood during the school year? Although individual
students may not reside permanently in Prospect Park, students as
a group represent a permanent population, thus PPERRIA actions
to exclude them appears to be a violation of State Law
(even if I am a non lawyer). Students and their parents pay taxes and
they are entitled to a voice in how those funds are allocated. Just because
PPERRIA believes that students may have interests that conflict with their
own does not give them the right to disfranchise an entire group of people.
The arrogance of this is astounding.
What recourse does anyone have to protest these violations? Well...
they have the grievance procedures. Or, as David has suggested
they can protest to their elected officials (but, as I have indicated
this may have little impact). This is why people like Jean
Wagenius have attempted to make the NRP more responsive.
And, it is why I would rather see the NRP die than receive
additional funding if no residents bill of rights is written into
the NRP Statute.
Michael Atherton
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
