Steve Cross wrote:

> Each list member may want to look at SF 3238 and
> contact his or her representative in the Minnesota
> House to indicate your views on it.

Before you do this, I encourage you to read my
comments on S.F. 3238.  This is a good bill, if one
looks closely enough.

Under current law, many Minneapolis neighborhood
groups face a difficult choice: either disregard
existing law, or discourage local citizens from
participating in the grassroots institutions meant to
serve everyone�s interests.  S.F. 3238 will solve this
problem without creating the problems Steve described.
 Most of Steve's concerns dissolve upon a close
reading of the bill, and the other will be solved
through passage of a legislative amendment Steve
requested.

Let me resolve Steve�s concerns one at a time:

> It�s my view that the procedures are
> mandatory, not voluntary *snip*.

These procedures are clearly voluntary.  Read lines
1.26 through 2.3 of the bill:

  1.26     (c) For purposes of this  
  subdivision, "neighborhood 
  1.27  organization" means a nonprofit corporation 
  under this chapter 
  2.1   that represents a defined geographic area,  
  has been accepted by 
  2.2   a political subdivision as the basic planning 
  unit for the area, 
  2.3   and has amended its bylaws to conform to 
  sections 1 to 4. 

The word "and" on 2.3 says it all: if the group
doesn't amend its bylaws to adopt the new language, it
doesn't have to obey the new rules.  That�s one
concern resolved.

> The bill would:
> 
> � require every neighborhood organizations to
> elect ALL members of its Board of Directors EVERY
> year.

Again, let's read the bill:

   1.12     Subd. 4.  [NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS.] 
   (a) A neighborhood 
   1.13  organization must elect directors annually. 

Though it is not explicitly clear, this language does
not require all directors to be elected every year. 
Related statutes allow for staggered multi-year terms.
 Still, an explicit comfort-language amendment might
be helpful, if one has not already been drafted.

> � authorize the election of Board Members by
> petition.

While this is true, any group using a petition would
first have to change its bylaws to do this, and would
then have to follow strict and demanding notification
requirements.  That�s plenty strict, and local control
is still preserved.

> � require meeting notices to literally be put
> into the hands of everyone in the neighborhood.  
> (The bill uses the word �practicable� for notices.  

As I have learned from House legislators and staff,
Steve was good enough to request an amendment to
address this concern (�practicable� versus
�practical�).  Steve�s amendment will be offered when
the bill comes up on the House floor.  I don�t know of
anyone who opposes it.

> � Allow anyone eligible to vote to vote at
> any meeting of the organization regardless of 
> whether he or she was a member.  

Where in the bill does it say non-members get to vote?
 Only members get to vote, and only in situations
where the bylaws say so.

> � As long as the bill says �has� and not �if�
> then the organization must amend its bylaws to have
> yearly elections of all board members;

Again, comfort language can make this non-problem
disappear.

> � As long as the bill says �practicable� and
> not �practical� an  impossible level of notice is 
> required; 

As noted, Steve�s amendment will solve this.

> � As long as the bill says, �are� on voting,
> the option is with the member and not the 
> organization.

I presume Steve was referring to:

   2.29     (b) In the case of a neighborhood 
   organization, members 
   2.30  with voting rights are . . . 

The text goes on to say that members are those who (a)
are on the membership list, (b) can show ID to prove
they live or run a business in the neighborhood or (c)
are vouched for by a member who can satisfy the first
or second requirement.  Group bylaws may also be
expanded to give voting rights to others not included
in the parts already mentioned.  I don�t see a problem
here.
 
> To my surprise, in the last year I�ve learned that
> some neighborhood groups 
> operate in less than an open and honest manner.  I
> have no brief for any 
> that operate in such a manner.  But this bill is not
> a remedy to those  problems.

This bill is not designed to root out corruption. 
It�s designed to give neighborhood groups an legal,
alternate means of maintaining fair and open
membership standards.  At this task, it succeeds. 
Please give your support to this worthwhile bill.

Dana Bacon
HPDL chairman
Page neighborhood

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - send holiday greetings for Easter, Passover
http://greetings.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to