North Fork Landowners’ Association

Notes:
     On May 31, the North Fork Landowners’ Association’s ReVision Committee, after holding three earlier meetings in 2008 to discuss bylaws and policy changes regarding divisive issues and contributions to other organizations, reported to the NFLA board of directors. (Report at right.)
     The following proposed addition to the bylaws was then presented to the membership at the June 7 business meeting. Watch this page for an updated version.
     Per the bylaws, the final version of this proposed addition to the bylaws will be presented to the membership at the July business meeting, and will be voted on at the August business meeting. A two-thirds majority vote is required to enact a change in the bylaws.

Proposed Addition to Bylaws
Article VI — Process for
Divisive Issues
June 7, 2008, Draft

The association adopts the following process to facilitate community participation and to encourage fair and informed votes on motions that raise divisive issues.

SECTION 1—Definition. A divisive issue is one that is of widespread concern to North Fork landowners, that substantially affects their interests, and that has a high probability of creating significant division among them.

SECTION 2—Deferral of Final Vote. If a majority of the members of the board of directors present and voting determines that a motion raises a divisive issue, a final vote on the motion shall be deferred until the next regular meeting in order to provide members notice of the motion, information about the issue, and an opportunity to be heard.

SECTION 3—Notice. Notice that a vote on a divisive issue is pending may be provided in the association’s newsletter, on its web site, by press release or by other means suited to notify the membership.

SECTION 4—Information. The association may sponsor workshops or presentations, disseminate educational materials, appoint a committee to study the issue and report to the membership, conduct a non-binding survey of its membership, conduct a non-binding survey of all North Fork landowners, or adopt other means that will help to inform its members about the issue.

SECTION 5—Results of Final Vote. The proportionate results of a final vote on a divisive issue may be reported to interested government agencies and to the public as a reflection of the views of the association’s members.

End draft version
of proposed bylaws amendment

Summary of Second
“ReVision” Committee
Meeting
April 13, 2008

Submitted by North Fork Landowners’ Association President Molly Shepherd.

The second meeting of the North Fork Landowners’ Association’s ReVision Committee was held on Sunday, April 13, 2008. Steve Berg, Suzanne Daniell, Margaret Heaphy, Ed Heger, Richard Hildner and Molly Shepherd were present for some or all of the meeting.
     Committee members initially reviewed and revised the draft summary of their March 16, 2008 meeting. They decided that after approval, meeting summaries should be posted on the NFLA web site. By doing so, they hoped to encourage dialogue and to build support for their recommendations among North Fork landowners.


ROLE OF NFLA AND
MISSION STATEMENT:
     After considering the NLFA’s Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, committee members concurred that the association’s role in the community is essentially the same as its stated purpose. Steve reiterated that he doesn’t consider a mission statement necessary but that any recommended statement should be consistent with the association’s stated purpose. Richard again observed that it might be difficult to obtain grants without a mission statement.
     Margaret pointed out that the NFLA’s purpose and thus its mission is set forth in Article I of the Bylaws, particularly in the last sentence. The sentence reads: “The association shall pursue the interests of all North Fork landowners, regardless of permanent residence, and encourage and facilitate their participation in association activities.” Committee members considered but rejected several abridgements of the provision, concluding that all of its components are necessary. They agreed on a mission statement that is faithful to the Bylaws: “The mission of the North Fork Landowners’ Association is to pursue the interests of all North Fork landowners, regardless of permanent residence, and encourage and facilitate their participation in association activities.”
     The committee also touched upon the NFLA’s educational function. Margaret remarked that the NFLA is unique in serving as a non-partisan conduit for information. It is a community organization, not a collection of individuals who have banded together to promote a cause.
     Discussion followed about how the NFLA might serve as a conduit for information about the road. For example, the association might help to educate landowners about options for dust abatement, perhaps forming a committee to explore the possibilities. The association also might openly acknowledge the division among landowners, as reflected in the results of the road survey, when it interfaces with government agencies. Suzanne expressed concern that absent accurate information, agency personnel might conclude that advocacy organizations represent the will of the entire community.


PROCESS FOR ADDRESSING
DIVISIVE/POLITICAL ISSUES:
     The committee’s first meeting focused on the need for a process to address and potentially resolve issues that divide the community. Committee members agreed that fairness requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the membership takes action on a divisive or “political” issue.
     Several committee members again questioned whether the term “political” accurately describes the kinds of issues that might trigger the process. The words “contentious,” “controversial” and “divisive” were suggested as alternatives but no consensus was reached. They will try to come up with another word.
     At their first meeting, committee members concluded that the NFLA’s Board of Directors should have the power to determine whether an issue is divisive/political and therefore subject to the notice process. They also concluded that the board should have a definition to apply when an arguably divisive/political issue arises. At their second meeting, they agreed that Steve’s proposed definition would supply the requisite guidance. Thus, subject to substituting another word for “political,” a “political issue is one with a high probability for creating disagreement among NFLA members.” Richard noted that appropriately, only a narrow range of issues would satisfy the definition.
     Discussion turned to refining the process for addressing divisive/political issues. Committee members reconsidered the staggered schedule that Steve proposed at the first meeting. Although they liked the underlying principle, Ed and Richard suggested some simplification. The basic process would work as follows:

• A member makes a motion at an NFLA business meeting that the association take action on an arguably divisive/political issue. The proponent may provide advance notice of the motion to the president or secretary-treasurer but is not required to do so.
• Immediately after the motion is made, the president or presiding officer polls the Board of Directors, which determines whether the issue is in fact divisive/political pursuant to the preceding definition.
• If the Board determines that the issue is divisive/political, the motion is read and discussed at the next business meeting. Amendments to the motion may be proposed.
• The motion is read again at the following meeting. After any further discussion and amendments, the membership votes.

     For example, if a motion subject to the process were made during the June meeting, it would be read and discussed in July and read, discussed and voted upon in August. A motion made during the September meeting would be read and discussed in October and read, discussed and voted upon the following June.
     Deferring voting on a divisive/political issue would give NFLA members time to learn more about the issue. Committee members felt that the association can and should facilitate the education process. Depending upon the timing of the motion, relevant information about the issue might be included in the newsletter. Information also might be posted on the web site and set forth in a press release to local media. Occasionally, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, an issue might be sufficiently important or complex to justify referral to a committee for research and presentation of options.
     Committee members also discussed voting on divisive/political issues. The possibility of using proxies was raised again, which would allow the votes of those unable to attend a meeting to be counted. One anticipated drawback is that proxies could not be counted when a vote is taken on an amended motion. Amendments may be helpful in building consensus.
     Other possible methods of absentee voting were mentioned, including secure e-mail and notarized mail-in ballots downloaded from the web site. Several committee members commented that a mail referendum might be warranted for some issues, despite the cost. The dilemma is how to enfranchise the maximum number of members without creating a cumbersome and expensive procedure, unresponsive to amendments, and vulnerable to challenge.
     Finally, the committee revisited whether a simple majority or a supermajority should be required to pass a motion for action on a divisive/political issue. Those present settled on a supermajority of 60%, more than the simple majority required for passage of ordinary matters but less than the 2/3 supermajority required for passage of a bylaw or bylaw amendment. Richard characterized 60% as a formidable but not impossible hurdle, one that would protect the interests of a substantial minority.


CONTRIBUTION POLICY:
     At their first meeting, committee members concurred that requests for contributions to other organizations should be subject to the same process as divisive/political issues. They recognized at their second meeting that an exception must be made for ordinary, budgeted or authorized operating expenses.

     The committee will reconvene on Sunday, May 11, 2008.

End April 13, 2008, meeting summary



Summary of Initial
“ReVision” Committee
Meeting
March 16, 2008

Submitted by North Fork Landowners’ Association President Molly Shepherd.

The initial meeting of the North Fork Landowners’ Association’s “ReVision” Committee was held on Sunday, March 16, 2008. Present were Steve Berg, Suzanne Daniell, Ed Heger, Richard Hildner and Molly Shepherd. Margaret Heaphy couldn’t attend but contributed comments on the committee’s agenda by e-mail.
     The committee’s overall agenda includes the following items:

• The role of the NFLA in the North Fork community
• A mission statement
• Consideration of the circumstances in which the NFLA will take a position on divisive issues
• Consideration of a division of labor between the elected Board of Directors and the membership
• A contribution policy or bylaw

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION:
     Molly explained that she decided to appoint a committee after the September, 2007 business meeting. At that meeting, a motion from the floor to contribute to the road dust study commissioned by the North Fork Road Coalition for Health and Safety was approved by majority vote. The vote indirectly raised questions about the role of the NFLA in the North Fork community and in particular, its effort to maintain a non-partisan stance on divisive issues. The “ReVision” Committee is charged with reexamining how the NFLA does its business and making recommendations for bylaw amendments or policies to the membership as needed.
     Steve responded that he has a positive view of the NFLA, particularly in the exercise of its educational and social functions. However, he felt that after conducting two surveys of the membership on the road issue, with similar results, the NFLA should have taken the lead on the dust issue. [76.2% of the North Fork landowners who responded to the NFLA’s 2006 road survey signified support for dust abatement on the portions of the North Fork Road that remained unpaved.] The Road Coalition was established because the NFLA didn’t act.
     Other members of the committee elaborated on the NFLA’s accomplishments in recent years, notably with respect to zoning, the neighborhood plan, fire mitigation, and addressing threatened resource development in the Canadian Flathead. Suzanne noted that the NFLA has been able to achieve consensus on several issues that previously divided us; why can’t we also work to achieve consensus on the road? Ed observed that there are always a few vocal members on each side of an issue. He asked how we serve those in the middle, whose voices may not be heard. Richard similarly asked how we go about softening positions and moving people back to the middle.
     Discussion on specific agenda items follows.


THE ROLE OF THE NFLA:
     Margaret e-mailed that the NFLA’s role was dual in nature: “1) to serve as a conduit between the local government agencies and the North Fork Land owners…(a way of communicating between the two groups) and 2) a “neutral” organization that serves all the landowners as much as possible.” Ed referred to the NFLA’s long-standing, unwritten policy of declining to take a position on divisive issues. He distinguished between the role of the NFLA and the roles of the North Fork Preservation Association and the Road Coalition, both of which are advocacy organizations. Molly added that the priorities of the NFPA and the Coalition often differ from those of the NFLA.
     Steve doesn’t feel that there’s a strong difference of opinion about the role of the NFLA or what it should be doing. He identified three functions: social, educational and political. If a political issue comes up, the organization needs to put on its educational hat and help its members to become more informed about the issue before any vote is taken. Suzanne remarked that the NFLA cannot escape being the voice of the community, which may require the presentation of both sides of a disputed issue.


MISSION STATEMENT:
     Committee members reviewed previous efforts to draft a mission statement, Article I of the Bylaws, which recites the purpose of the NFLA, and Margaret’s e-mail. Ed related the history of efforts to devise a mission statement. Steve declared that the purpose of the organization is set forth in its articles of incorporation and bylaws. We don’t have a copy of the articles and should obtain one. Steve felt any additional statement of the NFLA’s purpose was unnecessary and might even conflict with the bylaws.
     Suzanne commented that mission statements may be cumbersome but they help an organization to define itself. Furthermore, if a board of directors sees deviation from a mission statement, the statement may enable them to correct it. Richard observed that a mission statement is helpful in some other circumstances, for example, in applying for grants. Questions about governance and resolution of disputes shouldn’t be addressed in a mission statement, however. Margaret wrote in her e-mail that the NFLA’s mission “should reflect a sense of neutrality with regards to any ‘contentious’ issue,” consistent with the interests of all landowners.


CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH
THE NFLA WILL TAKE A POSITION:
     Committee members reviewed Article I of the NFLA Bylaws, which provides that “[t]he association shall pursue the interests of all North Fork landowners . . . .” Does the provision require the NFLA to remain neutral or non-partisan on issues that are perceived to be divisive? Ed mentioned that in recent years, the NFLA has tried to avoid taking a position on issues like the road, the Forest Service management plan and the wilderness proposal. North Fork landowners recognize that these are emotional issues evoking strong differences of opinion. Steve observed that when an issue is termed “divisive,” the NFLA simply doesn’t deal with it. Committee members agreed that the organization currently does not have any policies or procedures to help the membership work through divisive issues.
     Ed acknowledged that there have been NFLA meetings at which a crowd demands action and that it’s desirable to have an accepted means of dealing with such situations. Deferring a decision may allow cooler heads to prevail; leadership is important. Margaret similarly suggested in her e-mail that if an issue is potentially controversial, it might be announced on the NFLA web site and in the newsletter. Any action should be postponed until the next meeting, when the issue might be discussed and perhaps voted upon.
     Richard asked how we protect against the transient tyranny of the majority. We need a mechanism that enfranchises the membership while protecting the interests of all landowners and maintaining the stability of the organization. Steve urged that the key lies in providing notice and an opportunity to be heard before any action is taken on political issues.
     The threshold question is defining what we mean by a “divisive” or “contentious” or “political” issue. Ed commented that we don’t want or need to provide advance notice on every matter that comes up at a NFLA business meeting. Practical limits are necessary. Steve suggested a working definition: a “political issue” is one with a “high probability for creating disagreement among NFLA members.”
     The next question is who determines whether an issue satisfies the definition. Committee members agreed that the board of directors can and should make the decision. The board is elected to represent the membership and serves at the members’ pleasure. When an arguably political issue arises at a meeting, the chair should immediately and openly poll the directors as to whether the definition is satisfied. Notice requirements come into play only when the directors determine that an issue is in fact political.
     Committee members then discussed how best to provide notice. The NFLA holds only five meetings per year, from June to October. Many landowners don’t or can’t attend the meetings. Some committee members initially felt that all notice should be in writing, either by mail or in the newsletter. A mailing to all landowners costs $500 - $600, however. The newsletter is published twice a year, in the late fall and in the spring. Do we want to incur the expense of mailings? Do we want to lock in many months of delay before taking any action on an issue?
     Steve outlined a staggered schedule whereby the mode and timing of notice would depend upon the time of year a political issue was submitted to the secretary treasurer or the membership. For example, issues submitted from October 1 to December 31 would be printed in the winter newsletter while issues submitted from January 1 to March 31 would be printed in the spring newsletter. Issues submitted from April 1 to May 31 would be read at the June business meeting and acted upon at the July business meeting. Issues submitted in June would be read in July and acted upon in August; those submitted in July would be read in August and acted upon in September; and those submitted in August would be read in September and acted upon in October.
     Richard suggested that the Board of Directors should have a tool box to use at its discretion. Some issues may warrant written notice to members and perhaps mail ballots or a referendum. Some may warrant deferral to the annual meeting in August, treatment currently given to proposed bylaw amendments. Some may warrant reading at the next scheduled meeting and discussion and action at the following meeting. And even some non-political issues may warrant deferral to permit informed discussion and decision. Molly added that some discretion is necessary; we don’t want to create one-size-fits-all notice requirements that impede the NFLA’s ability to respond to circumstances as they arise.
     At a minimum, committee members appeared to favor a procedure requiring the proponent of a motion to provide written notice to the secretary-treasurer before a meeting, reading of the proposed motion at the next scheduled meeting and deferral of action on the motion until the following meeting. Richard observed that democracy works best when it’s deliberative.
     Discussion turned to voting on a deferred “political” issue. Assuming notice and an opportunity to be heard, should motions addressing political issues require a simple majority or a supermajority? If the latter, 60%? 2/3? 75%? The question remains on the table.
     The question whether to allow the voting of proxies on a deferred “political” issue also remains on the table. The current bylaws do not permit the use of proxies. The outcome of a vote depends on who shows up at the meeting. Proponents of a cause can pack a meeting and work their will. Would the use of proxies discourage packing meetings? Would their use allow the voices of those who do not or cannot attend meetings to be heard? Or would the use of proxies discourage attendance at meetings and lead to cumbersome and contested vote counts?
     Committee members likewise discussed but did not decide whether a procedure requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard should come before the membership as a recommended policy or as a bylaw amendment. Ed suggested the possibility of raising the subject at the June business meeting.


DIVISION OF LABOR BETWEEN BOARD AND MEMBERSHIP:
     Committee members agreed that directors are elected to represent the membership and accordingly should have some power and responsibility. If the members don’t like how directors exercise their power/responsibility, they can vote them out of office. Thus committee members generally felt comfortable giving directors the power to determine if any issue is “political” and subject to deferral.
     In her e-mail, Margaret commented that if the NFLA strives to serve all North Fork landowners, the directors should remain neutral on contentious issues while they are in office. Ed pointed out that the NFLA has had many presidents, some “red” and some “green.” In recent years, they haven’t used their office to pursue their personal agendas.


CONTRIBUTION POLICY:
     Committee members expressed various opinions on contributions to other organizations. Margaret questioned whether the NFLA should contribute money to another organization unless it serves all NFLA members. Suzanne inquired about limiting the monetary amount of a contribution. Ed encouraged the development of a contribution policy or bylaw that wouldn’t create undue amounts of work.
     After discussion, committee members generally agreed that requests for contributions to other organizations should be handled in the same fashion as “political” issues. They are by definition “political.” Molly mentioned that the contribution policy that was proposed at the October meeting was intended to provide both notice and an opportunity to be heard before a vote. Steve felt that more than ten days notice to the secretary-treasurer should be required, however, since making a contribution implies endorsement of another organization. Several committee members expressed a preference for written notice to the membership before any action is taken on a request for a contribution.

     The next meeting of the committee will be held on Sunday, April 13, 2008, at which time committee members will resume their discussion of the preceding agenda items.

     End March 16, 2008, meeting summary