Swede Hill bylaws input

Swede Hill Neighborhood Association offers the following comments in response to OCEAN’s latest draft of its by-laws:

Section 4.01 Membership.

• This has to reflect what will hopefully be changed in Section 5.06 {Voting Rights.}

Section 4.02 Conflict of Interest: If a member has a substantial interest in a project, the member cannot participate in any decision concerning the project. The member must disclose the interest at the time a plan amendment application is filed and at the time a recommendation letter for the project is requested. A person has a "Substantial Interest" if a person either serves as a corporate officer or owns a part of or is invested in the property, or a family member owns a part of or is invested in the property, or a business or nonprofit developing or owning the property or has received funds or anything of value from such a person or entity during the previous 12 months, or the person owes money to anyone involved in the project.

• How will OCEAN mediate a dispute over whether or not a conflict of interest exists? Does some formal mechanism (not identified in the by-laws) already exist for ruling on such matters?

Section 4.03 A member who has not attended any meetings within the past 6 months will be dropped from the membership roll and must reapply for membership following the rules of any new member.

• This policy complicates record-keeping and will potentially keep stakeholders from their right to weigh in on issues that directly affect them. It may discriminate against some elderly and disabled persons who have difficulty getting to Carver Library or sitting at a meeting for two hours.

• Either one is a stakeholder or one is not. Why should OCEAN impose more stringent requirements for voting than does the States of Texas? A six-month stretch that presents no compelling reason for a member to attend a meeting does not negate his or her stake in Central East Austin. Once a person becomes a member, he or she should remain so until OCEAN establishes that he or she no longer meets the definition of membership.

Section 5.01 Annual Meeting of Members.

• Add requirement that the minutes of this meeting be posted to the web and sent electronically to all members. (As Ms. Valenti stipulates in her comments on Section 5.02.)

• Add requirement that the meeting AGENDA be posted to the web and sent electronically to all members one week prior to the meeting. (As Ms. Valenti stipulates in her comments on Section 5.02.)

Section 5.05 Quorum. A quorum shall exist when there are 10 % of the Members present in person at the meeting.

• What was the previous standard? (More or less than 10%?) Is 10% standard?

Section 5.06 Voting Rights. Each Member shall be entitled to one vote on each matter

submitted to a vote at a meeting of Members as long as the member has filled out a membership form at least one month before the vote. Voting by proxy shall not be permitted.

• Why change from 14 days to one month to validate a new membership? In fact, since agendas may not be posted, at the earliest, until 7 days prior to the meeting, we recommend that the waiting period be no longer than 7 days.

Section 5.06 Voting Rights. Each Member shall be entitled to one vote on each matter

submitted to a vote at a meeting of Members as long as the member has filled out a membership form at least one month before the vote. Voting by proxy shall not be permitted.

• Swede Hill again proposes that OCEAN function more like a House of Representatives, with a set, pre-established number of votes for each issue. The body of this House should include one representative for:

1. Each OCEAN neighborhood association

2. The 12th St. Business Owners Group

3. Business owners not affiliated with the 12th St. Group

4. Huston-Tillotson University

5. Residential Property Owners

6. Tenants

• Perhaps those business owners not affiliated with the 12th St Group might select Eric Shropshire’s nascent council as their representative?

• As above, we feel strongly that the “waiting period” be limited to 7 days.

Even if this proposal is rejected, we ask that as OCEAN establishes voting rights, it give serious consideration to the City of Austin’s requirement—per City Ordinance 25-1-805—that all neighborhood plan contact teams “include at least one representative from the following groups within a neighborhood plan area:

1. Property owners;

2. Non-property owner residents;

3. Business owners;

4. Neighborhood associations

Section 5.08 Process for Voting on Issues Affecting a Particular Neighborhood. Matters affecting a particular neighborhood should first be presented to the applicable neighborhood association before being set on the agenda of an OCEAN meeting. OCEAN shall not contravene the recommendation of the affected neighborhood association. Unless the vote is approved by a 2/3 majority of OCEAN members after proper notification.

• A neighborhood contact team exists—in part—to help neighborhoods better communicate their wishes to City entities. It should amplify, not diminish, the voice of any neighborhood that has spoken on a zoning change or plan amendment to properties that lay 100% within their boundaries. To that end, we propose the following amendment:

Matters affecting a particular neighborhood should first be presented to the applicable neighborhood association before being set on the agenda of an OCEAN meeting. OCEAN shall not contravene the recommendation of the affected neighborhood association if the affected neighborhood has discussed and voted on the particular matter in accordance with its own by-laws.

• If, however, the en masse vote of OCEAN does contradict that of the affected neighborhood association, such notice shall be made. {See note below about dissenting opinions.}

• Define “matters affecting a particular neighborhood” as zoning cases and plan amendments that apply to properties laying 100% within the official boundaries of a specific neighborhood association.

• Dissenting Opinions. The by-laws should include a process by which dissenting opinions are officially recorded and permanently affixed to any official document that states OCEAN’s opinion/initiative/proposal/vote on a matter. This is especially important when a matter affects more than one neighborhood—e.g., OCEAN’s recent small lot amendment—but it would also hold true for matters that “affect a particular neighborhood.”

In other words, if there is a zoning issue that concerns property contained entirely within Swede Hill boundaries, the by-laws would make clear that OCEAN shall not contravene the Swede Hill Neighborhood Association opinion, and that OCEAN shall convey to the Planning Commission and City Council an official OCEAN position equal to that of SHNA. If, however, a regular OCEAN vote on a matter does result in dissenting opinion, that opinion shall be recorded and conveyed along with the official position.

Section 5.08 Process for Voting on Issues Affecting a Particular Neighborhood. Matters affecting a particular neighborhood should first be presented to the applicable neighborhood association before being set on the agenda of an OCEAN meeting. OCEAN shall not contravene the recommendation of the affected neighborhood association. Unless the vote is approved by a 2/3 majority of OCEAN members after proper notification.

• Swede Hill strongly suggests that OCEAN eliminates this rule because it is riddled with non-precise, confusing and problematic language. Here are but three problems:

  • What is meant by “2/3 majority of OCEAN members”? Voting rules imply that it means 2/3 of all members who attend the meeting wherein a vote is held. At present, there are 99 members on OCEAN’s roster. Effectively, this means (at present) that (at most) only 67 stakeholders of Central East Austin could vote to undermine the collective will of an entire neighborhood. It strikes Swede Hill as fundamentally unfair that 67 of 5000 CEA residents could contravene the opinion of an affected neighborhood that has officially spoken on the matter.

  • What is meant by “after proper notification”?

  • When would this “notification” occur? Firstly, the result of the vote at the OCEAN meeting would have to contravene the affected neighborhood? Then OCEAN would have to notify all OCEAN members and collect votes from each one? How would these members be “properly” informed of the issue if they were not present at the initial meeting?

Section 6.02 Election of Officers. Any member may serve as an officer of OCEAN. Election shall be by majority vote of the Members present at the meeting, provided a quorum is present. The Members first shall elect a President, then a Secretary and then a Treasurer. The person receiving the most votes for any such office shall be declared elected to that office. In the event of a tie vote, the decision shall be by lot in such a manner as may be determined by the members. Officers shall take office immediately upon election.

• Include Vice President in the list of those who shall be elected.

• Define the process for deciding a tie vote.

Sections 6.03-6.06 Duties of the President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer.

• Define duties more specifically. For example: who is officially responsible for counting the vote at meetings?

Section 6.08 Removal. Any officer or Steering Committee member may be removed by the act of the Members whenever in the judgment of the Members such removal is in the best interest of OCEAN by a 2/3 affirmative vote of the Members. Repeated failure to attend meetings constitutes cause for removal.

• Please specify more completely what actions constitute grounds for removal, i.e., how many meetings missed? Consecutive or not? Difference of opinion? Please stipulate specific thresholds.