Our bylaws have not been reviewed for over 5 years, so the Bylaws Committee conducted an overall review this spring and summer. After much discussion with various groups, we finalized our proposal last week. You were sent two emails with the proposals and explanatory cover letters on Friday, July 10. If you did not receive them, contact me at mary.sheehy.moe@gmail.com to get your copy.

 

A primary focus of the committee was where to go next with the evening membership pilot. Although the pilot did not produce the membership surge we had anticipated, there were two benefits of the evening option that the committee attempted to address. Both have appeal beyond the evening members. One was creating different times to meet so that those who cannot always attend our regular meeting at noon have an alternative to stay engaged. After talking to both  "evening" and "regular" members, we believe that encouraging attending one meeting as opposed to another creates an unhealthy split in the membership. We think the inclusiveness and camaraderie of the club is enhanced when we all meet together.

 

On the other hand, innovation in meeting times and formats should be encouraged. Our club has been innovating in that way for some time - with the monthly social and occasional projects like the highway clean-up, the bell-ringing, camp clean-up, etc.  Additionally, the Zoom meetings we've had lately are extremely convenient and have the potential to bring new speakers and even other clubs to the Great Falls club. Therefore, the bylaws proposal returns to the Tuesday noon meeting as the "regular" meeting, but also requires the club to have an alternative meeting once a month to encourage innovation in meeting formats and to reach out to potential new members.

 

The other benefit of the evening option was expense. Evening members enjoyed a 50%+ reduction in membership expenses because meals were not included. The committee sought extensive input on a "pay-as-you-go" option and ultimately decided not to include it in the bylaws for two reasons: (1) There was considerable concern that it would discourage attendance and jeopardize the fiscal good health of the club. (2) Because the board has not had time to draft a specific "pay-as-you-go" option, members could not defend - or show the problems with - a hypothetical. Therefore, there is no "pay-as-you-go" option in the committee's proposal.

 

It is possible that I created some confusion in the entire debate by referring at times to the importance of "unbundling the fees." The term has nothing to do with the "pay-as-you-go" option. Instead, I used it to describe separating dues from fees. Our current bylaws include in the dues amount things that really are dues (the costs of membership charged by Rotary International, District 5390, and our club) and things that are really fees for club operations (primarily, but not entirely, meals).  We thought it was important to list these things separately in the bylaws so that members know what they were paying for and so that the board can make changes to one or the other as required. So when I used the term, "unbundle the fees," I was referring to separating fees from dues. They would still be paid as a lump sum, either annually or quarterly. Other than separating the two categories for clarity, the committee proposal has no proposed change in dues or fees.

 

There is, however, an amendment to clarify how dues or fees can be changed. The current bylaws create some confusion about that. They say the board can change the dues "from time to time" at their discretion. Because the dues amounts are in the bylaws, though (as required by Rotary International), it can be argued that any change would have to go to the membership and, as a bylaws amendment, would require a 10-day notice, a quorum, and a super majority of 2/3 voting. The committee and the board agreed on a middle ground for changing dues or fees.  It's important to get membership approval, but going through the laborious process of a bylaws change makes it difficult for the board to be nimble in responding to unforeseen expenses. Requiring a 2/3 majority seems like overkill; a simple majority seems fairer to all concerned.

 

How would that affect any future proposal for a pay-as-you-go option? Right now, the bylaws seem to say the board can make that decision on its own, but it's not clear.  If the recommended changes are made, the decision would have to go to the membership at large, and whichever side gets the most votes prevails.

 

These seem to be the issues creating the most concern and confusion in our discussions with the membership. I hope we have addressed them to your satisfaction. I will address other proposed amendments in a future bulletin. I can't thank Bill Bronson and Mike Rausch enough, as well as Past President Cari Yturri for their advice and assistance on this project. We will be sending the bylaws out for an electronic vote beginning Sunday, July 26, or you may vote in person at our regular meeting on Tuesday, July 28. Between now and then, I'll create at least one after-meeting opportunity for members to ask questions and am always available to any of you at any time at 868-9427.