[Bylaws] Process Re-visioning

[Arun Mohan Sukumar]

Hi,

Bill's suggestions are comprehensive, and we certainly need more folks on
the call to discuss some of these broad changes.. Doodle
http://doodle.com/ncngb2w5tecmn3as

On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:26 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> Since my suggestion that we try to figure out where we’re going before we
> set off hasn’t generated much response, let me see if I can get the ball
> rolling.  Here’s a few thoughts:
>
> On Aug 25, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Remmy Nweke <remmyn at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As a starting point, what about having team members reply with points
> under the following sorts of headings:
> >
> *> 1.  Overarching Issues (holistic view of what’s needed)*
>
>
> a.  Clarify the interrelationship between the constituency and stakeholder
> group levels, e.g. with respect to making policy statements and process
> conformity.
>
> b.  Establishment as a legal entity under US tax law for the purpose of
> receiving and reporting financial contributions and preserving financial
> independence should anything in the accountability process lead to any
> presumptions about the status of resources held by parts of the Member.
>
> c.  Clarify and strengthen the functional performance standards of elected
> and appointed representatives.
>
> d.  Eliminate all references to charging dues for membership.
>
> e.  Decide about “good standing” criteria.  Would we want to formally do
> an annual check-in procedure like NCSG?  It adds a lot of work, and might
> not be needed on an intra-constituency basis.
>
> f.  Change all references to an NCUC “charter” to “bylaws” (no idea how
> that happened)
>
> >
> *> 2.  NCSG Charter Conformity Issues*
>
>
> II. Organization and Structure
>
> a.  It should say that The membership consist of
> "NCSG member" organizations and “NCSG" individual members that meet
> the Membership criteria and complete the processes set out in Section III,
> below, and subsequently receive a notice of acceptance from the Executive
> Committee Chair, [eliminate the following] or the Secretary acting with the
> approval of  the Chair.  [i.e. to make clear one joins NCSG and then
> selects a constituency if desired, rather than joining the constituency
> directly without joining the SG]
>
> III. Membership
>
> b.  Make clear that organizational reps to NCSG and NCUC need not be the
> same
>
> c.  Make clear that Eligible organizations are "NCSG Organizational
> members” and Eligible Individuals are "Individual NCSG members”
>
> IV. Executive Committee
>
> d.  If the NCSG chair is an NCUC member, s/he serves in an ex
> officio (nonvoting) capacity on the NCUC Executive Committee.  [we do this
> now but it’s not stated]
>
> VI. Voting
>
> e.  Our bylaws say Small Organizations shall have one vote, but the NCSG
> Charter says they get two.
>
> f.  Our bylaws say Large Organizations shall have two votes, but the NCSG
> Charter says they get four.
>
> [we have in fact followed the NCSG model during NCUC elections, for
> conformity]
>
> g.  Our bylaws say "Individual persons (“Individual Members”) that are
> Members in Good Standing of the Constituency are entitled to have one
> vote.”  But we do not actually determine “good standing,” we send the
> ballot to everyone who is in the data base and just accept a simply
> majority vote.  So per above this needs clarification.
>
> VIII. Changes to this Charter
>
> h.  Our bylaws say "A petition of ten (10) percent of the
> then-current members shall be sufficient for putting a charter amendment on
> the ballot…”  The NCSG Charter says “Proposals to amend this charger may be
> submitted by five percent the then-current members eligible to vote…”
>  [does this need to be aligned?]
>
> >
> *> 3.  Discrepancies with Current Practices to Close*
>
>
> a.  Eliminate dues references
>
> b.  Decide if there should be a Policy Committee and if so how it is
> constituted.  Normally we by default do things at NCSG level, but there
> have been times when NPOC didn’t agree to something and/or we wanted to
> make our our statement and it wasn’t clear in the absence of a PC how to do
> it.  We opted for a general consultation with members and then the chair
> said yes based on “sense of the list” but that’s not an appropriate model.
> Even if the PC rarely is “convened,” it should probably exist so we are not
> legally mute.  I would suggest that for this purpose the PC could comprise
> all elected and appointed persons (e.g. the EC, appointees to the NCSG EC
> and PC, and NCSG Councilors who happen to be NCUC members), operating in
> consultation with members if at all possible (how much depends if it’s time
> sensitive).
>
> c.  Replace the Secretary-Treasurer with just a Treasurer, who should have
> annual financial reporting obligations.
>
> d.  The bylaws say
>
> >
> *> 4.  “Would be Nice” Improvements*
>
>
> IV.  Executive Committee
>
> a.  We might consider establishing a Vice Chair, so there will be at least
> two people who really feel responsible for getting things done, and the
> work can be shared.
>
> b.  The bylaws say, "Voting on the EC on the matters listed in section
> IV.F below. All EC votes called by the Chair must be responded to in ten
> days. Regional representatives who fail to vote within that time limit four
> times in a row are considered to have resigned their office as per VII.B.2
> below.”  We have had constant problems of non-responsiveness over the
> years, so I would suggest this be tightened to seven days and twice.
>
> c.  On the Google doc in 2012 I made a number of suggestions regarding the
> EC (in red) that I’d argue merit discussion:
>
> *EC members shall work closely on an ongoing basis with the Chair and any
> other elected officials on NCUC’s overall strategy and its implementation.
>
> *The EC will hold o​fficial m​embership meetings, either in person or by
> teleconference, at least four times a year.  [This could be twice or
> thrice, but more important would be a requirement that EC members attend
> and if they miss two in a row they are out. This has been a problem.]
>
> *EC regional representatives shall endeavor to recruit new members from
> their regions, and to maintain periodic communication with them in order
> to promote engagement, particularly in Constituency and Stakeholder Group
> votes.
>
> *Appoint and coordinate with members who will lead the performance of
> necessary functional roles, or perform these themselves, i.e. coordination
> of inreach and member relations, coordination of outreach, and maintenance
> of the website and other electronic platforms. If suitable and committed
> members cannot be identified to lead the performance of these functions,
> EC members are encouraged to take on some area of functional responsibility
> in the interim. [As the regional reps often have not worked with their
> regions much and as there are functional tasks that need to be performed,
> it might be desirable for them to be assigned functional roles that really
> need be performed.]
>
> *The chair should establish ballots for voting w​ith the active support of
> the EC and any inreach/membership director that may be appointed. At
> present the responsibility for administering the election falls entirely on
> the Chair, and more recently, Maryam and Tapani’s volunteering.  This is
> not fair or sustainable.
>
> * If an EC member consistently fails to meet her/his responsibilities, the
> other EC members shall consult the person in question with an eye to
> rectifying the situation. If no solution can be found, the other EC members
> may, on a unanimous vote, remove the member from office and appoint an
> interim replacement who will serve until the next election cycle.
>
> Ok…more than enough to chew on for one message.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>


-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/attachments/20150827/397bafac/attachment.html>