Many are asking “GCGBAG, how should we vote on the proposed Nordecke bylaws amendments?” We are suggesting a “No” vote.
To be sure, there are a number of positive changes in the Board’s proposal that we support. Some changes, like codifying online voting and clarifying responsibilities of some Board members and appointees, align with the proposed revisions to the bylaws that we put out in spring, prior to the publication of the Board’s initial proposal.
Leaders from GCGBAG even met with Board representatives in May and we were able to come to a number of compromises on our “competing” proposals, notably around ranked-choice voting and adding language for Nordecke as an organization to affirmatively stand with our Trans friends and family.
However, there are still a number of significant differences from our proposal and the Board’s that raise major concerns.
Board term lengths are extended by a year. Being on the Board is an exhausting, volunteer gig and two years is a long commitment.
Term limits do not apply to replacement Board appointments. That means if a Board member resigns, it opens the door for an unelected replacement Board member to serve upwards of two years with no democratic mandate, then run as an incumbent before term limits would even begin to apply. (For reference, five current members of the Board came into their current roles as replacement appointees).
the Board proposal fails to close the loophole we identified that permits current Crew employees and contractors to run for office.
It ignores our proposed conflict of interest disclosure requirements.
It did not adopt our proposal’s requirement for a recorded vote on expenses beyond $1000.
Advanced written notice of meetings would finally be required but the Board omits our proposal’s requirement for publishing agendas or minutes.
It does not require minutes, records of votes and mandatory annual financial reports to be published on the website.
Another key difference is that our proposal was a package of amendments, broken up by sections of the bylaws. That means — had we formally introduced it — Nordecke membership could have voted on some or all of our proposed revisions. The Board proposal is all-or-nothing.
So why “No”? Are we letting perfect be the enemy of good? Not at all.
A “No” vote just means we go back to the drawing board — not that we erase it.
The Board could reintroduce their amendments immediately but break them up, separating more contentious issues like extending term lengths and limits from common-sense improvements. The Board could also incorporate the low-hanging fruit revisions like closing the Crew employee loophole and conflict disclosures in their new package.
If the Board wanted to take it further, it could commission a Nordecke member workgroup to consider additional revisions — something GCGBAG members have volunteered to serve on.
We all agree that the current bylaws need improvements. But not everything in the Board’s proposal is an improvement. We should say “No” to this take-it-or-leave-it amendment and quickly regroup to introduce the vital, common-sense changes we can all get behind.
-###-