Bylaws Committee - A Minority Report

As a member of the Bylaws Committee, I would like to express another point of view regarding the Committee’s proposal for revised Bylaws. I strongly oppose the current proposal which appears to me to be rather one-sided. It gives new powers to the Board (setting fees for example), but most importantly, it all but eliminates the quorum requirement for business meetings. A handful of members at a meeting (theoretically as few as two) could make major changes to the club rules, fees, programs, budget, or even Bylaws which would be very difficult or impossible to reverse later. The Bylaws need to provide some assurance that a substantial portion of the membership is involved in major decisions. In my view, those who support the proposed Bylaws should be careful what they wish for.

Based on the e-voting survey results and comments last summer, the MYC membership appears to be about evenly split* over philosophical issues involving voting rights and democracy at our club. Some are happy to cede control to a tiny minority of the membership, the Board or a small number of members who have the time and inclination to attend lengthy business meetings. They feel that if members don't make the effort to attend a meeting, they should forfeit their right to vote. Others feel that whenever possible and practical, the whole membership should have the opportunity to participate in discussions and vote, electronically or otherwise, to better represent the vast majority of the members who find it difficult or impossible to attend business meetings. This would also draw larger numbers of members with creative new ideas into the process, and hopefully result in greater participation, on and off the water.

These are not just abstract philosophical issues. Your ability to participate and vote in a convenient manner can have a dramatic impact on your dues, duty requirements, privileges, club programs, and the whole character of the club going forward.

In order to change our Bylaws, the current Bylaws clearly require a two-thirds approval at a meeting with a quorum of two-fifths of the voting members present. It seems highly unlikely that the current one-sided proposal could possibly pass. Some sort of a compromise appears to be needed to accommodate both sides of the issue. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

Currently we are in the awkward position of having Bylaws which are very difficult or impossible to live up to. A two-fifths quorum is required for business to be conducted at a business meeting which we typically don’t come close to achieving. Theoretically, any business conducted at a meeting without such a quorum is invalid as per our Bylaws as well as Robert’s Rules to which our Bylaws refer. Until we can find a broadly acceptable way to revise our Bylaws, my suggestion would be for everyone to try to live up to the letter of our Bylaws whenever possible, and to do our best to live up to the spirit of the Bylaws whenever it is not. The purpose of a quorum is to include a substantial portion of the membership when conducting business. Lets try to be as inclusive as possible for all the members whenever we can.

Please comment, whether you agree or disagree with my perspective.

Eric Aker

* For example, the survey of the whole membership showed a few more members to be in favor of e-voting than against it.