Minutes of the Policy and Rules Committee meeting, June 12, 2000

Meeting began at 7:30 p.m. McMurray library

Present were: Sally Fox (board member), Ray Mielbrecht, Vic Bottomly, =
Carol Salkind, Mark Salkind, Nota Lucas, Jacqui Pegues, Fred Hansen, =
Scott Engelhard, Harvey Pegues.

Vic read for the committee the current committee charter. After brief =
discussion, no changes to the charter were suggested.

Next item of discussion was a proposed by-law amendment regarding the =
procedure for amending by-laws.


Should there be certain meetings in the calendar year in which by-law =
amendments may only be raised?=20

Scott Englehard's suggestion was to have such votes either quarterly or =
semi-annually. Carol Salkind thought that once per year would be =
sufficient. Ray Milbrecht stated that no such limit should be imposed =
because of the difficulty in addressing immediate concerns should they =
arise. Others stated that by-laws should not be changed based upon =
immediate concerns. Instead, rules and policies may be advanced to =
address immediate concerns.

A side discussion ensued discussing emergency motions and the =
possibility that by-laws may be amended in emergency fashion. It was =
pointed out that current procedure would not allow by-law amendments by =
emergency motion and no such procedure has been proposed.

Jacqui Pegues suggested that if the amendments were to be once per year, =
they should not be at the same meeting as the election of officers of =
the council, but rather a month before or after. Fred pointed out that =
meeting attendance is often lowest during summer and the holiday season =
at the beginning of the year.

Scott stated that two opportunities, once in the spring and once in the =
fall, would be the best times for such by-law amendments because meeting =
participation is usually larger during those times.

Carol, still advocating for one meeting per year suggested an April =
meeting.

Three month notice period.

The subject then moved to the requirement of a three month notice period =
before a by-law vote. The committee found among itself general agreement =
with this proposal. Advantages of this approach were that the committee =
would be able to study a proposed amendment and issue a report or =
reports addressing the proposed amendment. The period would allow =
members of the VMICC to review the issue for at least two meetings.

Mark Salkind stated that the committee should consciously examine pros =
and cons of a proposed amendment during this period, and put them in a =
report. Nota suggested that 4 months might be more appropriate for this =
time.=20

An option for majority and minority opinions in a committee report was =
also encouraged.

Ray Milbrecht pointed out that with a suitable notice time, we do not =
need to set certain dates for such amendment votes.=20

It was proposed that two different versions of the procedures be =
drafted, one with specified vote dates, and one without. The different =
proposals could then be better addressed.

Other By-Law Procedural issues

The committee decided that other aspects of the current by-law procedure =
should remain in place. This includes the 5 member signature =
requirement, and the 2/3 supermajority requirement.

On the question of who should supply copies of the report and proposed =
by-law, general consensus was that the committee should provide them and =
be reimbursed from VMICC's operating fund. Fred pointed out that 100 =
copies only cost about $8 from the local copy shop.

Concern and discussion was raised about frivolous by-law amendments =
taking up time and resources, however, any preventive procedure proposed =
seemed to be inappropriate for a by-law. Fred also stated that a three =
month notice period should be sufficient to deter any abuses to the =
process.

Other Business

Robert's Rules. Jacque pointed out that a problem exists in the current =
by-law regarding the edition of Robert's Rules. The version specified in =
the by-laws is apparently unavailable. Other members concurred that they =
could not find it. The chair stated that he would get information from =
the parlimentarian regarding information on the edition and whether a =
change is required.

Telephone Poll provision of Board Policy. Harvey raised the issue of the =
tabled (in the general council) motion to amend the Board Policy to =
remove the telephone poll provision. The original purpose of the motion =
was to bring Board Policy in line with the spirit of the Open Meeting =
Act. As Mark Salkind pointed out, the act prohibits decisions made by =
telephone conference because the meeting is not open.

Related to this issue was discussion regarding what the Board could do =
under "emergency" situations. Jacqui was uncomfortable with the board =
setting policy positions before a vote of the council could take place. =
She suggested that if the county were to need an advisory opinion, but =
not provide enough time for council discussion, then the council should =
simply tell the county that no advise could be produced because of lack =
of time.

Harvey then moved the committee to present a simpler motion to the =
council striking the telephone poll provision. Because the meeting was =
running late, some members commented that the vote appears to be rushed =
and not fully discussed. A vote was taken on the motion and the motion =
failed.

For next meeting, the agenda will include approximately one half of the =
meeting's alloted time to further discussion of Harvey's proposal.

Next meeting will be held at McMurray Library, 7:30 p.m., on Monday, =
July 10, 2000.

Vic Bottomly, Chair