Records Committee
Bylaws Proposals
  Results 
Deadline is 20 Jun 2021
  

Instructions:  There are two proposals to add new wording to the Bylaws.  The first will remind voters to make their comments appropriate for public consumption and the second will add a new section to the Bylaws that will allow for removing any inappropriate comments from committee documents or public writings.

The comments, taken from our email discussion, were collected as they came in and are included here for your consideration.  The original proposals are encapsulated in the proposals themselves in, hopefully, appropriate bylaws language. (...vetted by the proposers).

General Comments:  (Made as part of the discussion).

  " Are we becoming the Gestapo that we should dictate what people should say and/or think? I think the bylaws are working fine as they are and we should leave them alone."   (Steve Sommerfeld)

-------

"I also endorse there be a ‘no change’ option. These proposals appear to be reactionary and unnecessary. I think we should approach bylaw changes very carefully; simpler is often better when it comes to regulations / bylaws.  These types of issues are often better resolved through self policing or directly addressed on a case by case basis as necessary. "  (Rick Fridell)  
 
-------

"I'm late to weigh in on these proposed changes, mostly because I don't have a very strong opinion about them. I think we should always try to be respectful to each other and to those submitting records. However, I am in general agreement with Rick and Steve that bylaws changes should be made carefully. I haven't seen any comments during my time on the committee that are so egregious that they warrant changing our bylaws, in my opinion (including the comment that I suspect these proposals are in response to). Although I cannot vouch for the validity of that particular comment, I think there are instances where raising concerns about the person submitting the record is warranted, IF backed by substance. If the committee member is okay with going on record with that comment, then that is their decision and I don't think we should be making bylaws changes that make voting members hesitant to express their opinions/concerns."   (Mick Schijf)  
 

Main Idea:  Add to the Voting and Acceptance Criteria section ( IV.C.5.) a sentence that reminds voters their comments should be respectful and appropriate for the general public.

Comments from our email discussion:  (see "General Comments" above)

" I hope we can all remember to be respectful of those submitting records and also our fellow reviewers. Milt is working on language we can vote on for our bylaws which hopefully will remind us that our personal negative views should be kept to ourselves. Ad hominem attacks have no place on the Committee."    (David Wheeler)

Proposed Change:  (Add the text in red to section IV.C.5)

5. Comments. On the first circulation a "reject/no" vote must be supported by appropriate comments. Comments must be supplied for a recirculation for either a "reject/no" or "accept/yes" vote. Besides being honest and objective, your comments should be polite and fair to all.

Vote:    
                   Accept: - 3
            No Change: - 6
    
 

Main Idea:  In order to make the public product of the committee appropriate and representative of the Committee, it is proposed that a new section be added to the Bylaws the will allow a petition to delete or change wording of a specific committee document, that is thought to be inappropriate.

Comments from our email discussion:  (see "General Comments" above)

"I like the proposed update. One idea to throw out there -- it seems the only recourse we have as a committee if we see a committee member not being objective/polite/fair is to vote to have them removed, which takes at least an 8-1 majority. But what if we wrote something in the bylaws about "move to strike" action. So if we see a comment that seems more emotion-based than objective, (or rude, unfair, etc) in some way, we can vote to "move to strike" the comments from the record and that vote is either stricken from the record, OR the voting member in question has to re-vote and re-submit their vote and comments. And voting to "move to strike" would take just a simple majority. Just an idea"  (Stephanie Greenwood)

"And perhaps there would be a 90 day window in which to enact a vote for "move to strike" a vote/comment. That way we're not going back and opening up decades of records to potentially vote on, or, protecting current records from a "move to strike" vote 20 years from now."   (Stephanie Greenwood)

Proposed Change:  (Add an independent Section on "move to Strike" as section IV.D

IV.D.  Move to Strike:

    1. If there are any comments or writings that could eventually be published or released on behalf of the committee, that may be deemed  inappropriate (rude, unfair, emotion-based, or containing an ad hominem attack, etc.), any member of the committee may make a "move to strike" proposal within 90 days of the emergence of the writing in question, which will be  voted on by the committee.  The decision will be made by a majority vote.  If it is decided to remove the comment, the author of the comment may choose to rewrite the comment so that it meets committee standards.

Vote:     
                  Accept: - 2
           No Change: - 7