I find Steve�s representation of S.F 3238 unfortunate and hazardous to a full and fair discussion of this bill. After having two months to examine this bill and work with legislators to amend it (note Rep. Kahn's post), he inaccurately criticizes its most fundamental points.
I will point out one clear instance of this (the optional nature of the bill) and leave it there. I wrote: > > 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. Steve replied: > 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. I fully expect a court to read the entire bill and deem it optional. "Has" versus "if" is not the issue. Take a look at lines 2.10 to 2.12, 2.15 to 2.17 and 3.15 to 3.17. Each set of lines is tied to the first part of the bill. Working together, these pieces are clear: if your organization chooses to adopt the new definition of "neighborhood organization," the rules will apply to your group. If you do not adopt the new definition, the new rules do not apply. Period. One other point deserves comment. Steve wrote: > 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." He later writes: > I need to again state that I'm not opposed 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. What's wrong with giving groups the choice of letting neighborhood residents join their neighborhood group and vote on issues as determined by the bylaws? When people vote in public elections, this same standard applies. If you aren't on the voting list, you can still vote that day if you or a witness can present a valid ID that confirms one's residency. If a neighborhood group wants to give the "aggressive dissidents" voting rights as residents, that's the price of democracy. Steve, you�ve had months to hold this discussion with legislators and this list. Criticizing the bill on inaccurate grounds--after negotiating an amendment-- at the last minute is unconstructive at best. If you genuinely want people to come together to help an acceptable version of this bill pass, I encourage you first to describe the bill accurately, and then to make your remaining concerns heard in a timely fashion. Dana Bacon Page neighborhood __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://http://taxes.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
