All,
On Ruth Anne's second point (quoted in full below), I don't believe it is
necessary for the new bylaws to speak specifically to the question of
"grandfathering" in full members. The bylaws do change the process for
creating new members, but they don't nullify the membership of current
members. Anyone who is a member at the time of the adoption of the new
bylaws would remain a member. According to Lee the current membership
rolls are old and scant, but they do list several people who currently
attend. The remainder of us can become members by following one of the
processes listed in the by-laws.
Regarding Ruth Anne's first point I agree that bylaw changes should be
carefully considered over a significant period of time, but I believe that
we have met that standard. We have been discussing making changes to the
church bylaws consistently and publicly for more than four years. Drafts
of the bylaws have been proposed and discussed in Congregational Business
Meetings in each of the past three years and as recently as this past
August. In addition, we announced the dates and agenda items of the
upcoming Business Meeting in church and in the bulletin several of the past
weeks.
I'd like to keep the Bylaws on this week's agenda. However, I accept the
possibility that there may be some who decide that the question requires
additional deliberation and do not consent to pass it. If that happens
we'll take what we learn in any subsequent discussion and put the matter on
the agenda again for this spring's Congregational Business Meeting.
Best Regards,
Stacy
Stacy Vlasits
2057 Zach Scott Street
Austin, TX 78723
(330) 347-0836
On Wed, Dec 4, 2019 at 7:47 AM Ruth Anne Abraham <abraham.rad@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
First, any vote on bylaw changes would normally be preceded by a
significant time to study both the proposed changes and the old bylaws.
This should be in written form. Therefore, I believe any vote on bylaw
changes is premature.
Second. Although I haven't studied the bylaws carefully (see point 1), I
noticed there is no provision for grandfathering current full members. This
is an example of the need for more careful reading and discussion.
Ruth Anne Abraham
