Draft A incorporates the diversity committee's recommendations.
Draft B uses the previously proposed diversity bylaw language.

6-10-03: This diversity policy language in draft A is being replaced with the language found at: wbai.net/bylaws_revise/br_divers_cmte_ab6-10-03.html

___________________

Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 03:29:48 -0800 TO: iPNB
FROM: Carol Spooner, Chair, Bylaws Revisions Committee

Attached in rich text format [now in MS Word - .ed] are two versions of revised bylaws, both with the changes we agreed upon at the last iPNB meeting, but one without revised "diversity" language and another with revised "diversity" language.

For ease of comparison, the two versions are shown side-by-side -- on the left side is the version without revised diversity language, and on the right side is the version with revised diversity language.

Note, in particular, Article 4 sections 4, 5, 6, 7, & 10; Article 5 sections 1(C), 3(D), & 6; Article 7 section 2; and Article 8 section 4. All other sections of the two versions are identical.

The revised "diversity" language is based upon language we received on Sunday as the "majority report" from the special committee formed to come up with compromise "diversity" language. However, that language was in my opinion (as well as many others') vague, ambiguous, in some parts contradictory, and incomplete in that it impacted several areas of the bylaws that the committee did not address.

Therefore, in consultation with Dave Fertig (and after conversations with Lydia Brason, Willie Ratcliffe & Susan daSilva), the attached is our best effort to "translate" the proposal from the committee into "official bylawsese" ... and to fill in the blanks and work out the inconsistencies and a couple of the problems in the proposal.

I expect there to be some disagreement as to whether this "translation" "interpretation" & "extension" of the language we received accurately reflects the intent of the "majority report" from the committee ...

So, what else is new?

A first draft of this language was sent last Sunday to all (I believe) committee members who agreed to "majority report" and a second draft was sent to them on Tuesday ... asking for their feedback. Aside from Dave Fertig, Lydia Brason, Willie Ratcliffe & Susan daSilva, I received none.

To expedite matters, I suggest that the board consider both drafts (as well as the language we received from the committee majority) & meet for a conference call to discuss them. I would then suggest that the two drafts be presented to the LABs for a vote, and that the board adopt whichever version gains the vote approval of at least 3 of the LABs. I hope this will save some time. If the board approves one version or the other and it then turns out that 3 LABs won't support it, we would have wasted precious time.

Both versions are controversial ... for different reasons. I think we need to find out what at least 3 LABs will support.

Pasted below [click here], in case you missed it, is the language we received from the diversity language committee "majority".

--Carol Spooner

___________________

html document with both versions [html 285kb]
MS Word document with both versions [MS word 518kb]
Revised bylaws with new diversity language -draft A [MS Word 322kb]
Revised bylaws without new diversity language -draft B [MS word 392kb]