All:
I appreciate the careful reply by Dana Bacon. But I'd like to
explain further why my view that SF 3238 is not good legislation.
Dana said:
> 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.
>
I have heard before that the bill originated from a claim by someone
that section 317A.401, subd. 2, was being violated. That subdivision
prevents anyone from being claimed as a member without some overt act to
join.
So if the problem is with section 317A.401, subd. 2, why isn't that
subdivision amended in the bill?
Because that section's not amended, there is no change in the inability
to claim "everyone in the neighborhood" to be a member of an
organization.
I have heard that someone started the effort to adopt this legislation
by claiming that all the neighborhood organizations were violating the
law because they claimed everyone in the neighborhood as members. But
that assertion is, I believe, a major mistake of fact. I have made
thorough inquiry and was not able to learn of a single neighborhood
organization that has made that claim. If none are making that claim,
why are we trying to fix the law to somehow make their claims legal?
Dana said:
> 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.
>
It doesn't work that way. The language in the bill says "has" amended
not "if" amended. The language is only voluntary if you believe that a
court would buy a claim that language elsewhere in the bill that is
unequivocally mandatory is made voluntary by the simple expedient of
allowing an organization to refuse to amend its bylaws to conform to
those mandatory provisions.
Dana quotes me and says:
> 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.
>
How can the words "elect directors annually" mean "not elect directors
annually"? The words in the statute are not "hold ELECTIONS annually."
The words are "elect directors annually." If some directors aren't
elected each year, then they aren't "elected annually." And, if the
provision is "not explicitly clear" then it needs to be fixed.
Dana quotes me and says:
> > � 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.
>
I agree. The provision is voluntary. But even with plenty of controls
the question remains whether elections by petition is a good policy
decision that any organization should seriously consider using.
Dana quotes me and says:
> > � 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.
>
I hope that it will be adopted because "practicable" is a killer word in
legislation as it stands right now.
Dana quotes me and says:
> > � 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.
>
Fair enough. Here is the actual wording from SF 3238:
> 2.29 In the case of a neighborhood organization, members
> 2.30 with voting rights are, at a minimum, individuals who are on a
> 2.31 preexisting membership list or who, at a meeting of the
> 2.32 neighborhood organization, can produce: (an ID, voucher, etc.)
>
Note that the bill does NOT say:
> 2.29 In the case of a neighborhood organization, members
> 2.30 with voting rights are, at a minimum, individuals who are on a
> 2.31 preexisting membership list AND who, at a meeting of the
> 2.32 neighborhood organization, can produce: (an ID, voucher, etc.)
>
Note the change of "or" to "and". It's very clear that the
organization may not say, "you may have an ID but you're not on the
membership list." With the "or" in there, the person is clearly
entitled to say "I've got an ID and that's all that is required."
Dana says:
> 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.
>
That is not a fair quote of the bill. (See the real text above.)
Specifically, the bill has an "or" between what is shown as (a) and (b)
and that makes all the difference.
Dana says:
> It�s designed to give neighborhood groups an legal,
> alternate means of maintaining fair and open
> membership standards.
>
But as long as section 317A.401, subd. 2, is not amended, nothing has
been changed.
It is mentioned that while there is not really any problem in the
existing language of the bill, a "comfort-language amendment" could be
added to resolve my concerns. Unfortunately, it's my understanding that
a corrective amendment (the term I prefer) is to be resisted. If the
bill really does what it is claimed that it does, why would it be
resisted? I don't derive any comfort from the feeling that the existing
bill does not do what it is claimed that it does.
I need to again state that I'm not oposed to the stated purpose of the
bill. I would, in fact, go further to clean up some of the unfortunate
practices of some neighborhood organizations. But SF 3238 just doesn't
come close to resolving any real problem. At the same time, it leaves
good neighborhood organizations at the mercy of aggressive dissidents.
Thank you.
Steve Cross
Prospect Park
_______________________________________
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
