The problem was, I noticed some descrepencies between the bylaws the council had voted on, and the hard copy I was being asked to endorse. I did not know what to do....so I sent the following e-mail to the Executive Committee and Teresa Mager in the hopes they could help me resolve the issues. I did not go behind Teresa Mager's back, but sent her the same information I sent the Executive Committee.
I sent another e-mail to the council at large regarding our bylaws and the open door. In that e-mail I stated: "I have minor concerns that need to be addressed before I can sign the hard copy document, but I am working with the chair bylaw committee and executive committee to resolve these concerns and ensure the document signed is in fact the document that was voted on." While they eventually ended up related, these two e-mail streams were seperate - and the council at large was not given access to the e-mails below until after I had been harrassed about this issue. These correspondences were released to the council after the August meeting...because even though I had explained that my goal was to sign what had been voted on, and had thought the issue was resolved, I was still recieving questions and criticism. So in line with my offer to share the process of what happened and these e-mails in an open meeting, I released these correspondences to the council. In an effort to clear up confusion.
Important note: The original e-mails sent back and forth included the previous e-mails sent before. So that all a person had to do is scroll down to see previous correspondence. See these e-mails in their original reverse order form
From: ramona harvey
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:50 AM To: The Executive Committee and Teresa Mager
Subject: ICOIL Discrepency with regards to the bylaws.
This is an official notice to the executive committee that there is at least 1 descrepency between the bylaw we voted on and the bylaws given to me by the bylaw committee to sign.
I ask Teresa Mager to please send me her the electronic copy of the bylaws we passed so that we can begin to remedy the problems outlined below so that I might be able to sign the bylaws before the next meeting.
I have finished proofing the bylaws that were given to me in hard copy against the bylaws that were voted on by the council that was sent out to Nancy on 6-8-06 by the bylaw committee. Unfortunately they do not match up...and the council did not authorize a change at the meeting where we voted to adopt these bylaws.
Specifically where they do not match up is Article IV sect 3 parts A and B.
The version voted on by the council is written as (highlighted parts are the differences):
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. The vacancy shall not affect the power of the remaining members to execute the duties of the Council.
(B) The Governor may delegate the authority to fill such a vacancy to the remaining voting members of the Council after making the original appointment.
The version given to me in hard copy reads: (the lower case letters are not typos)
(a) Except as provided in subparagraph (b), any vacancy occurring in the membership of the Council shall be filled in the same manner of the original appointment. (note: the first part of original part A)
(b) the vacancy shall not effect the powers of the remaining members to execute the duties of the council. (note: the second part of original part A)
Part (B) is totally missing. This may seem like a minor change or perhaps even a typo, but it is much different then the version we voted on. I am not saying that the second version is not better then the first (it may be), simply that this is a change that was not voted on by the council and it would be a bad policy to start out new by certifying documents expecially bylaws not approved by the council. The second version may be more appropriate, as I do not know if the governor even has the authority to do what is stated in part (B), but I have not been asked to certify whether or not I agree with the bylaws, only that it is the bylaws that were adopted by the council.
As you can see though perhaps well intentioned these are significantly different and having listened to the tapes, I can guarantee the council did not vote to amend this section in that way.
Not only have I been asked to sign a document with a significant not approved statement in it certifying it's validity, I am being asked to certify that these bylaws were approved on 6-8-06 which is not only an inconsistancy, but a impossibility as the bylaws were voted on by the council on 6-14-06. Presumably this is just a typing error, and can be easily remedied with the electronic version of the hard copy Teresa Mager gave me. But given what seems to have happened with the state plan, I am not about to certify another potential inconsistancy that can lock the council up yet again, nor do I wish to take on the potential liability involved in signing off on bylaws that contain something council never even had an opportunity to vote on.
Teresa Mager asks for an apology
Teresa Mager wrote:
To: The Executive Committee
From: Teresa Mager
For clarification, please be advised that during the period between June 8, 2006 (the date on which Nancy Young mailed out a draft copy of the bylaws to ICOIL members) no changes other than clerical, i.e. typos and appearance, were made by me to said draft. In response to Ramona's concern regarding the date on the bylaws submitted to her for signature as Secretary, I was in error in not changing the date to June 14, 2006, the date of the ICOIL meeting at which said bylaws were approved. Certainly, there was no duplicity involved on my part and I resent the fact that my integrity has been compromised. I believe an apology is due me and, inasmuch as Ramona felt it necessary to ''voice' her opinion regarding her assumptions to all ICOIL members, her apology should be shared as well.
Again Note: this correspondence was not sent to the council at large until a month later, because of repeated concern expressed by council members.
I do not apologize for keeping the Executive committee informed, but I did openly give an apology to Teresa recognizing she could be an innocent party. However, I restated I still have a problem that needs to be solved, and no way of knowing how or when the problem occured.
From: ramona harvey
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 9:45 AM
To: Executive Committee
Subject: RE: ICOIL Discrepency with regards to the bylaws.
To Executive Committee and Teresa Mager
I do not believe that the change that I outlined below is purely clarical as the part B from the bylaws that was voted on completely disappeared.
I do not know how, when, or where this change occured and am only interested in rectifying it so that I can sign the document and the date clerical error so that I can sign the document. This can easily be done with Teresa M. cooperation of sending me the correct version of the bylaws in electronic format. Which is why I requested that her electronic version be sent.
I do not appologize for keeping the executive committee informed as to what exactly is going on and my concerns. Nor did I bring these concerns up lightly. I actually want to get this bylaw situation dealt with as much as the rest of you.
However, I do need and ask again for cooperation in fixing this issue. With that in mind I have yet to recieve the document I requested from Teresa M. whether it matches what we voted on or not.
I appologize if Teresa M. is an innocent party, I do not know who made the modifications to the bylaws. I only know that Teresa M. is the chair of the bylaw committee and she is the one that gave me the hard copy to sign. Given the nature of the problem, I have not asserted anything lightly which is why I provided specifics as to the changes that were made. For the record I triple checked the differences, before I sent out the e-mail...knowing this is a difficult situation, and that things might become more awkward and uncomfortable.
If this issue cannot be resolved with the cooperation of the bylaw committee, either through correspondence that insures I get the appropriate document, or if necessary y a duely called executive commitee meeting (in accordance with the bylaws and the open door providing of course appropriate notice), then I request this issue be added to the agenda so that the council can vote to accept the change in the bylaws reflected in the hard copy I was given.
Teresa states she rarely reads my e-mails, because they are vindictive and non-productive. She claims she never saw my request even though the all of the previos correspondence - including the request she says she never recieved was attached to this e-mail. She then proceedes to insult me further.
I must admit that I rarely read your e-mails because I find them to be vindictive and largely unproductive. So, if you did, in fact, request an electronic copy of the bylaws I never read your request. Now, however, it is a moot point inasmuch as I no longer have access to said documents. It appears you enjoy typing and have ample time to do so, and you know what they say "busy hands are happy hands". But, please do watch, you have a tendency to make clarical errors.
By the way, please do not feel obliged to apologize for my being an innocent party. I certainly don't.
To which I replied
I do not intend to be or come across vindictive in my e-mails, but I do try to be respectful. If you are an innocent party, I truelly do apologize and not because I feel obliged to. As chair of the bylaw committee I had hoped you would be able to help address my concerns. I also realize you are in a difficult position.
On my end I will make sure you have a copy of the approved bylaws as soon as I can. I know it is difficult to keep track of everything and I want to provide as much support as I can to the Bylaws/Policy and proceedure committee.