abl33

I"m pretty sure non-binary people, or anyone for that matter would not appreciate being called "it", I believe "they" is the preference and I'd imagine "it" would actually be offensive and therefore better to not say anything than to use "it".

Thank you all. That was all good advice and feels like a decent consensus. We will look to remove gender pronouns where practical and replace them with position titles where appropriate and stick to the MLA/APP Style Manuals for the rest.

Our organization is located in PA which has recently changed their Drivers license IDs to allow the option of Male/Female/X(non-binary) as three valid options. This has already gone into effect for PA, though the US in general does not officially recognize it yet, it appears to be heading in that direction. If we are updating our bylaws and intend to be inclusive, is there a consensus on how to include this third gender option into our text? Should we update all references to he/she to he/she/they or some alternative? Should we add a statement to define all references using he/she should be interpreted to include also include individuals who identify as non-binary as well? Should we do nothing until the US federal government also makes a third option official? I'm inclined to include it anyway since PA already does recognize it.

We are definitely going to need to be patient as this isn't going to be a quick fix, but its also not going to be something the leadership is likely to do willingly and so its important to know what we can and can't fight for. I think that "slap" just happened the other day. I don't hold too much hope that the leadership as a whole understood the slap, but I don't think anyone wants to get to the point where the swords are taken out as nobody will really win. Hopefully the president is able to digest things better from the meeting and will communicate things in the next week or so, but I"m not holding out much hope on that. I do not believe the leadership even realizes that there is actually is a real problem. At the meeting, a member asked the president what her takeaway from the past few weeks from all the comments she was getting flooded with and if she could pick out one or two that she thought most critical and say what she planned on doing to address them and her answer was... and this is just a paraphrase since the meeting wasn't recorded, but is fairly accurate: "People have been contacting me and are very upset about what is going on. It is important for me to give them an opportunity to let them tell me what upsets them. As for a solution, I think I need to give them time and they will become less upset." I"m hoping that they saw that the people upset were not just a vocal minority, but actually the super-majority of the organization and that wakes them up to the fact that there is a real problem that they need to take seriously. Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope on that because the way that the bylaws are structured, the officers and committee leadership are appointed by the existing president through a nominating committee that the president creates and which presents nominations as a complete package for approval from the general membership which is just rubber-stamped. The results have been that there is an inner clique that has taken control of all the points of power and the nomination proceedings which has, over time, turned inward and lost its connection with the general membership and has simultaneously grown to change their view from "I am representing the organization" to "I AM the organization." The difference is subtle, but was on full display during the special meeting and hopefully the meeting was a slap strong enough to get that leadership to recognize the disconnect and a need to improve it, but I fear it has gone too far and no action short of a full reset and a correction of the processes that allowed for this self-reinforcing structure to propagate will resolve this issue other than those who are not part of the inner clique leaving the organization.

I wish it were the case, but at this point its pretty clear that the intention of the president is to keep the membership silenced and disenfranchised. From what has come out, there appears to be a coverup ongoing that is only partially exposed. The officers thought they could sweep the facts under the rug and move on. They have all refused to answer questions and have tried to use any excuse (none seeming legitimate) to limit the meeting, the scope, the time, the format, and our rights at every step possible, so I do not believe this is just an incorrect interpretation as much as a strategy to deny and refuse everything and make us fight for every inch.

Thank you all for that feedback. Its good to know we are on the right track when we expect there will be push-back. nope... I'll update my profile, but we are located in PA, USA. I am aware that no-confidence votes in parliament do force resignations, but that isn't the case here. I've been energized by this issue, but am definitely new to this and working out what we can do about this on the fly as much of the membership is extremely upset with the officers actions, but the officers and board appear to think this is just a concern of a small but vocal minority. Our bylaws require advanced notice for most of the significant actions, but one idea we have to communicate clearly and publicly our position is to push a vote of no confidence in the officers which should hopefully generate a wake-up-call to the board for the need for action before the members take it upon themselves to do it for them.

That is an interesting point. I believe the most likely motion would be to make an official statement, but I could also see a potential to create a temporary committee for the purpose of investigating the incident and generating a public report of their findings. The bylaws are relatively locked down where notice must be given in advance of any significant action such as an amendment to the bylaws or removal of a member or officer/director. The special meeting was called to force the leadership to explain an action for which they are refusing and for which does not appear to us through information already made public to be in the best interest of the congregation. One of the members who heard the argument from the president believes that the president is interpreting the fact that there are some specific special meeting voting situations called out for members that this implies a limit on the scope of member's right to vote. These situations aren't called out in the member's rights section, but as part of details around procedures to change the bylaws, remove board members, and reverse a decision to not renew a clergy's employment contract in those cases it gives other a few different options for procedures including. The three statements are (1) "Removal from Office - An officer or Director may be removed from office by a vote of two-thirds of members present and voting at a special meeting of the congregation called for the purpose of considering this action, provided that such officer or director must be giving advance notice by the secretary of the congregation of such meeting and a reasonable opportunity to attend and be heard at such meeting." (2) "re-election ... c. The action of the board of directors shall be final unless a special meeting of membership is requested within fourteen days after the membership is notified of the Board's action." (3) "Amendment of bylaws - These bylaws may be amended at any regular or special meeting of the members of the congregation by a two-thirds vote of the voting members present, provided that the following shall first occurred;..." His concern is that because these specific items were called out, that it limits our ability to vote to just those items. While I believe that ultimately it is likely that the officers need to be removed, the special meeting was called for the purpose of having the officers answer member questions regarding their decision and the procedures they used to make their decision. I expect the officers to continue to "plead the 5th" and stick to their current story of "this is confidential and we cannot discuss the matter". Assuming they give no information to the membership, we could then put forth a vote of no confidence in the officers. We aren't governed by parliamentary procedures, so this no confidence vote isn't intended to force them out as much as to both publicly rebuke the decision of the officers and to put pressure on the board to act to take their own actions to represent the membership.

I'm a general member of an organization which has been going through some "drama" of which a group of general members are looking to assert what we believe are our rights within our organization. The bylaws have a provision for general members to call a special meeting of the membership which has already been done with an agenda that has been [partially] announced. The bylaws state that meetings "... shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order or alternative parliamentary rules established by the Board of Directors. If these conflict with Articles of the Bylaws, then the Bylaws shall prevail." The petition for special meeting included a call for a vote which the president removed from the official notice that went out for the meeting and I've heard that the position the president is taking is that members do not have a right to vote in general and only have a right to vote to elect directors and officers and no other rights. In our "Rights of membership" section of our bylaws it states only "Each member in good standing shall have a vote." Other than to define eligibility, it doesn't actually specify anything about what the vote is for. Also in the bylaws under "Functions and Quorum of the Board of Directors" it states that "The board of directors shall have control of all congregational operations, personnel, finances, and property; and shall have general management powers for the congregation, except when the congregation itself is in session." When I read those sections together, I interpret that to mean that during a special meeting of membership which is run under Robert's rules, any valid motion can be made and voted on by the general membership as long as the bylaws do not specifically prohibit it. The president and the officers are terrified of this meeting and looking to put whatever resistance they can in front of it, so I'm pretty sure its just one more thing they are doing to try and avoid the hard truths that are likely to come out, but I recently found this great forum and thought I would get a 2nd opinion. Another thing the president is trying to do is to schedule to meeting right before another previously called meeting to give this one a fixed 2-hour time limit, but I believe that they cannot use that 2nd meeting to force this one to end.