1. 0 Proposed Changes to the GRVNC Bylaws GRVNC Bylaws Committee Chair - LJ Carusone

2. 1 WHY? Resolving Competing Bylaws Changes! In 2004, two sets of separate and competing bylaws changes - one initiated by stakeholders, the other initiated by the GRVNC board - were submitted to DONE for approval. When GRVNC lost its quorum in November, 2004, DONE chose to hold on to the bylaws changes until GRVNC held a new election and regained it’s quorum. On December 12, 2005, representatives from DONE met with the Bylaws Committee. DONE communicated that it intended to approve all the submitted bylaws changes that did not violate the “Plan for a Citywide System of Neighborhood Councils” (aka “The Plan”) regardless of conflicting language or intent. If enacted, the conflicting bylaws would not immediately prevent the GRVNC Board from functioning, but unresolved conflicts over such basic issues as stakeholder definition and eligibility requirements for voting would prevent it from conducting another election.

3. 2 WHY? Resolving Competing Bylaws Changes! However, DONE representatives did offer GRVNC a way out of this mess. They would hold off on enacting the competing bylaws if GRVNC agreed to produce a third set that would resolve these conflicts. It was agreed then that GRVNC would submit a new set of resolving bylaws to DONE in the Spring, in time to prepare for the next election. In order to allow enough time to complete this work, the Bylaws Committee, by unanimous consent, voted to ask the Board to make one bylaws change immediately - to change the month of the annual election for the Board of officers from June to September. In December, the GRVNC Board voted to make the bylaws change. In January, stakeholders ratified the Board’s vote and it was submitted to DONE.

4. 3 Background and Process The Committee In October, 2005, GRVNC formed an ad-hoc committee to address issues and concerns with the existing GRVNC bylaws. It’s mission, the “preparation of GRVNC bylaws changes for consideration of GRVNC Board approval and submission to DONE for ratification”. In November, 2005 GRVNC appointed Government Relations Officer LJ Carusone to Chair the Bylaws Committee.

5. 4 Background and Process Committee Process The Committee established goals and priorities at its first two sessions The Chair received input from Committee members and created Agendas for each session of the Committee The Chair then posted the Agenda to each of its members, to the GRVNC.org website, the physical posting at the Vera Davis Center, and to a Yahoo group set up for that purpose. Additionally, the Communications Chair posted meeting dates and times with the Argonaut and Venice Paper.

6. 5 Background and Process Committee Process The Committee determined from the outset that a roundtable discussion format was the best way to encourage consensus and public comment. All bylaws proposals have been thoroughly discussed by the Committee before voting on any recommendation. The Committee was extremely cognizant of public input, and let any members of the public attending the meetings speak without regard to time constraints. No votes were taken until it was evident that at least a general, if not unanimous, consensus had been reached.

7. 6 GOALS 1. More diversity on the GRVNC Board 2. Empower stakeholders 3. Improve outreach and encourage stakeholder participation and involvement 4. Minimize slate politics 5. Encourage independent candidates 6. Streamline and simplify bylaws 7. Improve and empower committees 8. Improve Board efficiency

8. Bylaws Committee Proposals For Venice Neighborhood Council Voting Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council February 2006 Prepared For

9. 8 What We Have Now: The Current System Potential Advantages: Provides mix of at-large and district (geographic) representation Requires no Bylaws change Disadvantages: Allows slates to form super majority control Districts are unequal in population Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census) Districts are too large for effective outreach 21 MembersStakeholders have 15 votes: 7 Officers elected at-large 14 At-large seats 7 Members elected at-large 1 District seat (they choose 7 Members elected from Districts the district seat)

10. 9 7 Districts - 2 Reps Per District Potential Advantages: Somewhat more difficult for slates to form super majority control Some increased potential for outreach Preserves geographic representation Disadvantages: Allows slates to form majority control Districts are unequal in population Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census) Districts are still too large for effective outreach No defined division of responsibility or accountability between the two representatives in the same district 21 MembersStakeholders have 8 votes: 7 Officers elected at-large 7 At-large votes (Officers) + 14 Members elected from 7 Districts 1 District seat (address-based)

11. 10 14 Districts – 1 Rep Per District Potential Advantages: Creates representation from smaller neighborhoods Makes it easier for members to do outreach Accountability to geographically-defined district Somewhat less susceptible to slate control Disadvantages: Slates can still form super majority control Districts are unequal in population Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census) District boundaries are difficult to draw 21 MembersStakeholders have 8 votes: 7 Officers elected at-large 7 At-large votes (Officers) + 14 Members elected from Districts 1 District seat (address-based)

12. 11 Recommended Proposal: All At-Large System Potential Advantages: Least susceptible to slates gaining majority control Community-wide interests may be more likely to be represented (not just geo- or district-based) No issues with drawing district boundaries No issues with balancing population among districts Disadvantages: Some neighborhoods may not have a local representative to go to with an issue Narrow or singular interests may be more represented Interests may be so diverse to make consensus difficult 21 MembersStakeholders have 8 votes: 7 Officers elected at-large 8 At-large votes (7 Officers + 14 Members elected at-large 1 at-large member)

13. 12 Bylaws Committee Proposal Comparison And Recommendation Advantages: Least susceptible to slates gaining majority control Community-wide interests may be more likely to be represented (not just geo- or district-based) No issues with drawing district boundaries No issue with balancing population among districts Disadvantages: Some neighborhoods may not have a local representative on the Board Narrow or singular interests may be more represented Interests may be so diverse to make consensus difficult Advantages: Somewhat less susceptible to slate control Creates representation from smaller neighborhoods Smaller districts make it easier for members to do outreach Accountability to geographically-defined district Disadvantages: Slates can still form super majority control Districts are unequal in population Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census) District boundaries are difficult to draw Advantages: Somewhat more difficult for slates to form super majority control Preserves geographic representation Some increased potential for outreach Disadvantages: Allows slates to form majority control Districts are unequal in population Major redistricting may be required in 2011 (next Census) Districts are still too large for effective outreach No defined division of responsibility or accountability between the two representatives from the same district 7 Districts - 2 Reps Per District Recommended: All At-Large 14 Districts – 1 Rep Per District