Proposed By-law Changes - A Summary

To make it easier to understand the proposed by-law changes, I compared the ones in the 2009 packet to the new proposed by-laws.  In this way, I could see what the language used to be as well as what the proposed text is.  I summarized most changes and am including them here so others may benefit from my effort.  If anyone on the committee sees any misrepresentation in my summary, please let me know ASAP, and I'll make the correction. 
It would be helpful to know what the impetus was for many of the changes.
Notes in blue italics are my explanatory comments on the proposed by-law change. 
Notes in red reflect my opinions.

Changes regarding meetings and voting:
1. (Article IV, Section 2) Change would add a regular club meeting in February.

2. (Article IV, Section 4) Change would reduce the quorum for a meeting from 40% of (~120) voting members (e.g.~ 48) to 25% of (~65) voting families (e.g.~ 16 members) and would also presume a quorum unless one were called for.
   • While reducing the quorum by basing it on family memberships vs. individual members, the change would continue to allow both husband and wife within a single membership to be counted toward that quorum. i.e. 8 couples could make up a quorum.
   • Per Diane Kampf, the typical number of members attending meetings for several years has been between 10-15 plus Board members.
   • We need to understand the intention and the context of this proposed change.
       a. If voting is restricted to meetings, then reducing the quorum would mean that a very small minority of people could make decisions for the club. (The survey taken earlier this year indicated that only 30.5% favored reducing the quorum.)
       b. If voting is extended to non-meeting attendees by electronic balloting, then reducing the quorum would mean that meetings could continue to be conducted with a small minority of members, but that the entire voting membership would still have the opportunity to make decisions affecting the club.  i.e. The quorum applies to conducting business at a meeting, not to voting.
   I'd be okay with the latter, but not the former.

3. (Throughout the proposed By-laws) Changes to remove most language that implies that member voting occurs at meetings. Also, changes to allow for electronic notifications instead of current language that implies notifications are hardcopy or mailed.  Good stuff.

4. (Article V, Section 3) Change would allow majority versus 2/3 vote to remove an officer or director.
What's the impetus for this proposed change?

5. (Article VIII, Section 6) Change would give provisional members the right to vote.
I agree with this.

Changes which would reflect increases to the powers and duties of the Board:

6. (Article VI, Section 3a) Change to increase the limit to $2000 on expenditures over which Board must get member approval. This limit could be increased to a larger threshold set at the last meeting of the year by a majority vote.
The wording unintentionally implies voting by meeting attendees here? Perhaps it should also say to “adjust” the limit rather than just allow approval of a greater amount?

7. (Article VI, Section 3c) Change to say that a Board member would be an ex officio member of every committee.   Why? I think this is unnecessary.   The Board need not be so deeply involved in everything.  Committees' recommendations should be subject to member approval, and the Board can offer its judgment on the findings and proposals as it does for everything else.  Also, this rule could cause a large burden on Board members and perhaps cause bottlenecks to committee productivity.  (Note: The Small Boat Storage committee had no Board member.)

8. (Article VI, Section 3e) Change to allow the Board to promulgate and enforce any policies as well as rules or regulations “deemed necessary for the optimum operation of the Club.”

9. (Article VI, Section 3f) Change to add, “To establish schedules of events for the current and upcoming season,” to the expressed powers of the Board.

10. (Article VII, Section 1) Change to allow the commodore to appoint more than 3 members to the nominating committee.
The Commodore has done that this year. The 2009 nominating committee is composed of one non-Board member, one Board member, and three spouses of a Board member.   Pretty Board heavy.  I have no problem with the number on the committee, but I wonder if we need some guidelines on the types of members to be targeted for this committee, etc.

 11. (Article VIII, Section 11 and Article IX, Section 2) Change indicating that the Board would now have to approve any reinstatement of former members applying to the membership committee to rejoin the club. The Board would also establish the dues for such returning members.
Why should the Board be given these powers?

12. (Article IX, Section 4) Change adding explicit language saying the Board of Directors could now assess fees that “cover the cost of use of the Club’s property.
 I find this clause very troubling.  What use of the club would this apply and not apply to?  I think fees should be set by the members, not the Board.

13. (Article IX, Section 5) Change would make it a responsibility, not a right, of the Board to recommend fees to cover the cost of special expenditures.

14. (Article X, Section 4) Change giving the Board the right to assess fees for late payment of dues.

Changes relating to memberships

15. (Article VIII, Section 9) Change to create a new membership type, Emeritus, for members of at least 10 years who no longer wish to sail. This membership would have no race duty and reduced dues at the discretion of the Board.  It would not count toward the total member count and the Board could decide how many could exist at any one time.
This whole idea should be discussed by the members before a by-law change is proposed.  If we do have this, I think the dues for this membership type should be set by the membership, not the Board.

 16. (Article VIII, Section 4) A change that would reduce the age requirement for regular members to 18 and over, from 21 and over.
If a person wants to be a full voting member at 18, I'd be okay with that.  However, I wouldn't force juniors to convert to this membership type.

17. (Article VIII, Section 7) Change so that junior members could be 5 to 18 or if still in school, up to 24 yrs old. Former junior members who no longer qualified due to age or leaving school would not have any club privileges per explicit policy.
It seems all these changes (see below) to reduce junior status to under 18 from under 21 could just make it harder for young people to be a member of the club. i.e. They have to become full members paying full dues 3 years earlier. Do I misunderstand? I wouldn't be in favor of that.

 18. (Article VIII, Section 8) Change so that special junior members could be between 15 and 18 (instead of 21), or if still in school, up to 24 yrs old.

19. (Article VIII, Section 13) Change to the membership committee so its chairperson would be elected by the members at the annual meeting rather than appointed by the commodore.
Unintentional implication that voting has to be at a meeting? Also, unclear if chairperson is to be one of the six or a seventh committee member.

 20. (Article, X, Section 2) Change would give members 30 days, instead of 14, from date of delinquency notification to pay their dues before they could be expelled from the club.