------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:59:32 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: David R. Fertig
Subject: MEETING OF iPNB BYLAWS
REVISIONS COMMITTEE

Please forward and post to all interested parties ....

NOTICE OF MEETING OF iPNB BYLAWS REVISIONS COMMITTEE

DATE: Friday, January 31, 2003
TIME: 8 PM Eastern, 7 PM Central, 5 PM Pacifica time

The meeting will be held by telephone conference call and will be webcast by www.kpftx.org.

Committee Members: Carol Spooner, Chair, Ray Laforest, Janice K. Bryant, Rob Robinson, George Barnstone, Dave Fertig, Leslie Cagan (ex officio as Chair of the iPNB). All other iPNB members are invited to join the conference call meeting.

Agenda

Meeting to Discuss Bylaws First Draft from Attorney

1) Seeking 2nd legal opinion re diverisity issues

2) Resubmitting original draft to attorney

Discussion items:

1) We have received advice from several LABs to get a second opinion on the most controversial area, the diversity recommendations. There are lots of civil rights organizations with attorneys that ought to be friendly to Pacifica and willing to give us a pro bono opinion. -- perhaps MALDEF, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the Brennan Center, or the ACLU, or the Center for Constitutional Rights, or the Center for Democratic Renewal, or the NAACP LDF, etc, etc.

2) The draft we received from the lawyer did a good job of enforcing consistency in the bylaws where consistency was needed. However, the draft language made many substantive changes to the intent of the board from our straw poll votes over the past few months since September. I will recommend the following resolution for adoption at the meeting:

a) that the original draft submission be resubmitted to the lawyer, with stricter instructions ("don't make substantive changes"), including an instruction to produce a version both with and without the diversity requirement.

b) that the iPNB get the opinion of a civil rights attorney as to the diversity requirements. (Maybe call a special meeting of the iPNB just to do that, so we can have the response by Feb 28th.)

c) that two drafts (one with, one without the diversity requirement) be reported out of committee to the Feb 28th ipnb meeting, to be considered along with the opinion of the civil rights attorney, and the ipnb to vote to adopt one version or the other at the Feb 28th meeting.

Or, if the by-laws committee has the authority to get the second opinion, then I propose that:

a) that the original submission be resubmitted to the lawyer, with stricter instructions ("don't make substantive changes"), including an instruction to produce a version both with and without the diversity requirement.

b) that the by-laws committee get the opinion of a civil rights attorney as to the diversity requirements.

c) that the by-laws committee meet again to consider the opinion of the civil rights lawyer, and at that point decide whether to forward one or the other or both drafts, along with the opinion of the civil rights lawyer, to the iPNB, and if two drafts, our recommendation to the iPNB, if any, as to which one to adopt.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you..." - Gandhi