by Christopher Gray
At every level of our organizational work in ACB, a key task is the recording of what we do and why we do it. The recording of this information is typically accomplished by an elected or appointed secretary writing down notes on the proceedings and then writing up a set of minutes based on those notes. Local chapters, state organizations, and the board of directors of the American Council of the Blind all utilize a similar process to organize their business and preserve their history. The related boards, committees and working groups may or may not engage in similar practices, depending on the nature of their work. Committee work, for example, often finds its way into the public record when the committee files a report or brings a recommendation to a board of directors who then acts upon that recommendation and in so doing makes it a part of the overall record of the organization.
In the past decade, significant public and legislative attention has been spent on organizational meetings and the minutes written about those meetings. Often discussed under the topic of “open meetings” acts passed by state legislatures, such laws seek to heighten the accountability of government agencies, those funded by such agencies, and non-profit organizations. A basic belief is that all such entities hold a public responsibility and there is an inherent right of the public to be able to examine public records of such groups. It is also worth noting that non-profit, 501(c)(3) corporations such as ours must comply with special corporate and IRS requirements regarding the preparation and availability of financial records, but these requirements do not speak to minutes.
ACB minutes and their distribution have been a topic of concern to some ACB members beginning with an individual request dated October 21, 2003 received via computer communication. That request and subsequent discussion on ACB’s various computer lists has given rise to so many questions and apparent confusion among at least the computer-using subset of ACB members, it seems reasonable to engage in some broader organizational dialogue about the issue. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to present the situation as it currently is structured and define at least some of the points to be considered if changes are undertaken by ACB in the future.
In beginning this discussion, a few points should be made clear regarding ACB’s present policies and procedures:
- ACB is in full compliance with the requirements of our constitution and bylaws with regard to the distribution of minutes. As prescribed in Bylaw 4, Section B: “The secretary of this organization, in addition to the usual duties of such office, shall furnish to each affiliate and member-at-large a summary of all official actions taken at the convention or meetings of the board of directors, as soon as possible after the conclusion of such convention and/or meetings.” In fact, one can argue that our current secretary, Donna Seliger, has exceeded our requirements by sending complete sets of minutes to all affiliate presidents and members-at-large. It also seems fair to observe that every secretary of ACB with whom I have worked has put forth their best and considerable efforts in communicating the business of this organization to the state and special-interest leadership as well as the general membership. In addition, it has been the practice of the board to ask the representative from the board of publications to prepare a summary of each meeting for publication in “The Braille Forum.” This additional material serves as a means of informing the ACB membership generally about board meetings and activities.
- ACB is in full compliance with the laws of the District of Columbia in which we are incorporated with regard to the distribution and availability of minutes. The District of Columbia requires that minutes be retained in a public place, and minutes must be available for public inspection. Of course, we in ACB would add public, accessible inspection. At the present time, both of these requirements are being met.
As you can see, there are presently two means by which any member of ACB can receive a copy of minutes. A person can come to the national office and examine organizational minutes for at least the past several years. Second, any member can request minutes from their state president and presumably receive a copy. This is a process clearly defined in our bylaws, and we should adhere to it to our best abilities.
The question then becomes: To what extent can or should the national organization engage in the wider distribution of minutes or summaries of minutes? To what extent is such distribution desirable and on what basis should it be made? The ACB board of directors recognizes that a desire for a possible expansion of distribution exists among at least a small, vocal subset of the membership. Given this desire, it has been agreed that this matter will be taken up at our next in-person board meeting, scheduled for February 15, 2004. In preparation for that meeting, Melanie Brunson, as ACB’s acting executive director, is preparing a brief for consideration by the board containing information and recommendations on current practice and requirements as well as how we might manage logistical considerations if our distribution mechanisms were to be widened. The board will further need to discuss the implications of such widening of distribution with regard to greater distribution’s constituting a violation of our constitution and bylaws. If a change were to be made, the one thing that seems relatively clear relating to it is that the relevant bylaw would need amending in order to provide clear guidance for the ACB secretary on what must be done.
Despite my commitment and the willingness of the ACB board of directors to undertake such considerations, a small group has deluged the secretary and other key people in the organization with daily demands that, in virtually any other context, would be viewed as harassment. It is unfortunate that many of these messages have been belligerent, almost bullying in nature. Most particularly, our secretary has been placed in the position of having to handle many hundreds of e-mail messages that come from less than 20 individual members of the organization.
For better or for worse, democracy and deliberation take time, and very often, it is time well spent. As your president, I find it difficult to support significant change in policy involving the ACB constitution merely on the basis of some momentary outcry on an Internet list.
There is no doubt that ACB needs, and as an organization wants, to be as democratic as possible. Some believe that this means the complete availability and perhaps even automatic distribution of every document to every individual who wishes to see it. Idealistically, this sounds wonderful and it is a goal to which each of us may wish to aspire. Such an approach does have its downside, however. Practically speaking, do you wish to give your new fund-raising idea to competing organizations in your communities? Probably not. Is there information about ACB which we would prefer to hold in some degree of privacy? Of course there is. There’s a fine line between safeguarding the rights of our membership and allowing the public generally to know anything they wish to know about our organization, and protecting vital interests that could make or break organizational success in our business affairs, in our relationships with Capitol Hill, and in our work with other organizations within our community. These are not things we dare squander because of a momentary upset by 10 or 20 ACB members.
We must also be concerned as an organization with the creation of an internal subculture strictly based on its access to computers and online communications. It would be a simple, but perhaps too simplistic, solution to say that ACB should distribute minutes electronically to anybody who wants them. Simple? Yes. But fair or equitable to our membership? Absolutely not! We know that the great majority of our members do not use or have access to computer technology. I stand in support of that majority’s right to inclusion in whatever decision is made, if any, to change our current policies and practices regarding the distribution of internal ACB documents and minutes.
There is certainly much to think about as we consider the many ramifications of what can seem, at first blush, like a positive change to provide more information to the membership. Please communicate with ACB in your medium of choice if you have thoughts or comments you would like to share. On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 I will be available to receive your comments directly on a special call-in basis. This is an experiment, and I hope it will be successful. To participate, call (866) 633-8638 and enter the meeting ID of 53878255 or letstalk. This session will be held from 6:30 to 8 p.m. Pacific time (9:30 to 11 p.m. Eastern). This is not a meeting, but a chance for individuals to call and discuss their thoughts on a given topic. You can call in at whatever time is convenient for you during this time block.
When you call, please be prepared to provide your name, affiliation with ACB (if any), and your comments. We will make this a great opportunity for the full inclusion of ACB membership input.