FAN is looking for suggestions for bylaw changes.
The bylaws are below.
I’d like to recommend the following changes.
- Change the at-large structure to allow anyone to be an at-large member
Currently, when there’s a neighborhood association that’s represented in FAN any member of that neighborhood association can’t also be a member of FAN. I think it would be helpful to change that structure so that anyone, even those represented under a member neighborhood association could also be an at-large member of FAN. I think this would allow people to feel like they have a direct voice in FAN (maybe they don’t agree with how their member NA votes on something or they just want to have their own say since sometimes member NAs will be voting on things within FAN that didn’t also get voted on within that member NA itself). It also might encourage participation and involvement directly in FAN. People might feel more excited about getting involved if they know they have a direct voice. If someone is an at-large member of FAN and then their NA joins, they are removed from the FAN membership and I’m not a fan of removing people as voting members of FAN, if they want to participate. It’ll also allow FAN to show our actual number of supporters on our website. We would have more at-large members listed on our site now and that could help with our influence on issues if people saw how many people are really involved.
- Correct the bylaws to allow the board to select the number of directors
Currently section 8.2. says there can only be “four other FAN delegates” but in section 8.6. it says that “the Board may offer a proposal to add additional directors” and “the Board of Directors shall not exceed 15 members: four officers and eleven directors,” so these sections seem to conflict. By removing the first phrase the Board can scale up or down the number of directors like it looks like the bylaws originally intended, just like it looks like the Board can currently change the number of officers.
- Have staggered terms for directors
I think it would be great to have staggered terms for directors. That way there’s not a complete turnover of the leadership at one time. It could be similar to the way the city council is now where half is elected during each election. I don’t think there would need to be a bylaw change for this, but I’m not sure. Since directors serve for 2 years, we could add a few directors during the next election (maybe 2?), which I believe is as early as next April according to the bylaws for the officers and they would then have staggered terms compared to the other directors.