Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee Meeting Notes from 4/11/2022

Well… not much to report on the April 11^th Ad Hoc Bylaw Committee meeting, but only because I was kicked-out!

No…, it wasn’t anything I said. It was because the committee was supposedly going to get into the nuts and bolts of the bylaws and for some reason they didn’t believe they could or would express their honest opinions as to whether a bylaw was good or bad if there were guests in the room!?!?!?

Anyway, there was only one guest besides myself in attendance, but when the meeting began we were asked to step outside while the committee discussed whether or not we would be allowed to stay. A short time later we were called back into the room and told that, by unanimous decision, we were no longer allowed to sit-in at the meetings. We were politely uninvited, but then again, I don’t think we were ever really welcomed? Has anybody ever seen that committee meeting announced when the RCSC sends out their weekly “Your Sun City AZ Week” email blast?

I don’t really understand what threat we impose? It’s not like the guests can speak or offer an opinion? What stops somebody from voicing their honest opinion just because a guest is in the room? And it’s not like anything that’s discussed and approved is written in stone. The committee can only present their report to the board and the board will make the final decision. Everything that happens in those meetings are only recommendations!

So much for transparency! I think I have been fair with my reporting. I have mentioned no names and have made it very clear that these opinions are mine alone. Why now the secrecy? Wouldn’t it be nice to be an informed community perhaps knowing and understanding the thought process of the why and why-not a proposed bylaw may be good or bad? Or simply learning where they are in the process.

Upon completion the committee is intending to publish both a majority and minority report on the proposed bylaw revision. These reports will not mention any names but will indicate how many members were in favor or opposed to a particular amendment with explanation.

One item that took place prior to the start of the meeting did raise a feeling of concern. Again, this is just my opinion and only made based on an observation. I had no dialog with these members regarding this subject.

One of the committee members was pointing out to another member Section 28 of Robert’s Rules of Order. It appeared to me that this was something that the one member, perhaps only recently, discovered within Robert’s Rules and the other member seemed that he was not really aware of it.

Section 28 is titled “Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim”. Considering by paragraph or seriatim is the usual method for handling a revision of the bylaws or a lengthy amendment containing several sections. Each part is considered tentatively, debated and amended as necessary. “When there is no further debate amendments are voted on as they arise, but no paragraph as amended is acted upon (as to its final adoption or rejection) at that time. After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment. At this time additional parts can be inserted, or parts can be struck out, or any one of them can be further amended.”(RONR 28:6)

What I find concerning is the fact that each of these committee members were selected on their supposed extensive knowledge in regards to bylaws and the method of amending them! Granted, perhaps Section 28 was a revelation to only those two committee members, but I would have expected that every member was well versed in parliamentary procedure and Robert’s Rules of Order?

I am still kind of concerned with the method they apparently intend to use, which of course may change as they dig deeper into the process. I sincerely hope they take proper consideration when researching and reviewing the older versions of the bylaws. Just because a bylaw was written doesn’t mean its existence was justified. That’s why I believe the first step should be to establish the mandatory headings of the Articles (see RONR Section 56) that are required to satisfy and comply with the basic requirements according to Robert’s Rules. After all, Robert’s Rules is the designated parliamentary authority of the corporation. Then add any and all other bylaws, special rules of order and standing rules that specifically apply to the RCSC.

As always, I commend each and every member of that committee. It is a tremendous undertaking of the utmost importance. But when all is said and done, will the General Membership reclaim their rights of membership? Those rights are to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote at their own meetings of the Membership?

And this of course is just one man’s opinion!

Tom Marone - Sun City Advocate