As the partner of one of the Constitution Subcommittee members, I have listened as many people have called Bob over and expressed their views. A modified quote- “Why do good people hold such wildly differing views and why do others’ views seem so illogical”? It is obvious that we have a broad range of opinions about some of the clauses that need to be in the new constitution and we are not going to always agree.
The subcommittee tried to take a middle path in December and 68% of people voted for the December draft. 75% was required and the motion failed. Now people are starting to go back to their original views and a successful vote on the middle path seems even less likely.
So what is the way forward?
We do need a new constitution. The modified 1992 constitution is clumsy and out of date with modern technology.
At the February 8 meeting we are going to go over some of the more controversial clauses and you are going to be asked your opinion on each one. There are 5 or 6 of these clauses. Now if you need 75% approval for the whole document and we have several controversial clauses, we are going to need much more than 75% approval for many of the clauses.
To have any hope of getting a new constitution approved, we need to compromise. Please think about which clauses really matter to you and be willing to compromise on the other clauses. And please talk to other people. Open and friendly discussion is the only way forward.
Hi Janine,
Hi Janine, I am glad to have had that conversation with Bob the other day. And I agree with you that open and friendly conversation is the best, if not only, way forward. As I mentioned, Tatjana and myself would not be able to attend the meeting on the 8th but our opinion is that new Constitution should be future proof - it should allow for expansion of village "community" and reflect the varieties of needs and desires of present day members. That is the only way to keep the Association relevant, in our view.