This page is for members to speak out on GDPA and Park related topics. Comments, questions, answers, requests, and ideas are all welcome.
To have your input posted, email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or send a letter to: GDPA, PO Box 461, Coloma, CA 95613
Posting Guidelines: Emails will be screened for appropriate language. Personal attacks will not be posted.
No anonymous posts allowed...All emails or letters must be signed.
*************************************************************
ALL content in this area is the PERSONAL OPINION OF THE AUTHOR and does not represent that of the GDPA, the Board of Directors, Dept. of Parks & Recreation, or any other group or individual.
Members Speak Out...
Posted on 7/9/09 - received from Lyle Timmerman via email
Dear GDPA Members, Fellow Directors and Others:
It is not difficult or complicated to comply with the GDPA By-Laws. All that is required is for one to be reasonably familiar w/ them, be honest and of good character and be able to do basic mathematics.
To describe our By-Laws as generally terribly flawed and onerously difficult to satisfy is inaccurate hyperbole! It is also a disservice to those who have made the effort to abide by them in the past. To justify the motives or reasons for recent failures in compliance, either innocent or negligent, and brush off the consequences of them under the guise of altruism is disingenuous and a serious distortion of fact.
Once a year, or extremely rarely maybe twice, a substantial compliance problem might be encountered—achieving a quorum at a general Members Meeting. This is required in order to properly elect candidates to the Board of Directors. However, this obstacle can be overcome. But it takes forethought, planning, a bit of creativity and some hard work. In the last analysis it is sort of comical why this would prompt any anguish, when the matter could be easily remedied by the Board through a simple amendment to the By-Laws!
I think the framers of our By-Laws wanted to set a high standard when dealing with such important matters as determining who will lead the Association and be the custodian of its resources. The California Corporations Code, not our By-Laws as apparently some think, requires the same standard when a Board undertakes to take away Members’ rights to vote.
Our By-Laws are not perfect, but when adhered to they have served the GDPA well for a long time now. Still, they could benefit from a thorough review, and revision where appropriate. It is customary for an Association to conduct such a review and revision process on a regular basis—typically annually. Why the recent GDPA Boards have not done this is not clear to me, but it is one of the primary reasons I ran for election to the Board.
Our By-Laws are as workable as most and not particularly difficult to amend. Fortunately, very few changes have to be submitted to a vote of the entire Membership. For example, several membership-related changes can be made at the Board’s discretion. Different classes of membership can be established, annual dues for various classes may be set or modified, different privileges can be extended to various classes, and so on.
By all informed accounts the last Annual Members Meeting had the largest attendance ever. Everyone at the meeting quickly became fully aware of how strongly the overwhelming majority of the Members present felt and deeply cared about how the Association was being lead and how its financial, political and legal activities were being handled. This is not surprising since Association Members are required to render up monetary support of various amounts (most of them on an annual basis). In addition, they donate their time, effort and money to GDPA programs. Also, one of the things I think they value is being among the primary targets of the services and benefits provided the Park by the Association.
Our Association is different from most non-profit organizations that are governed by the California Corporations Code. Although I may be wrong, I am reasonably certain that by far and away the most numerous not-for-profits in our Sate are home/property owner associations. It is my guess that none of them are likely to embrace a “members prohibited” model for their governance any time soon. Further, our Cooperative Association is based at a State Historic Park. As a consequence, I contend it is different in nature from those at other types of State Parks, many if not most of which are recreational, conservational or environmental in nature
I do not believe that a “members prohibited” model for the GDPA is at all appropriate to our Association or to MGDSHP. In this model the Members are denied the right to vote for Directors. The Board has exclusive power and authority to determine its continuing composition, in perpetuity. One who has limited experience with a Historic Park and /or who has voiced a lack of particular interest in its historical and cultural dimensions to Directors, Members, GDPA staff, Park docents/volunteers and senior DPR/Park officials might disagree with me.
There is no question in my mind that our Members value our Association, its mission and its reason for being. There is also no question in my mind that most of them want to and feel they have a direct, immediate, intimate and on-going relationship with it and the Park; and would prefer that to continue. However, I think our Association differs fundamentally from the “lion’s share” of other Non-Profit Public Benefit Corporations (NPPBC) in California. Perhaps the following will illustrate, in pertinent part, why I feel this way.
Take, as an example, an NPPBC that aspires to serve or protect, say, battered women, neglected children, abused animals, endangered species, wild rivers or a delicate ecological environment. I would assert that the recipients/targets of these services, capable to discern as much, are first and foremost concerned about finding a safe haven and care little about the inner workings of the NPPBC. Those that cannot discern—a river or a wetlands would have difficulty with this—just simply and fortunately benefit from the efforts.
I am sure that those mentioned above who could, would genuinely and passionately express the value they place on the efforts of the NPPBC, and the appreciation and gratitude they feel as recipients. However, it is not practicable to establish, even for those that could or might seek or desire it, a direct, immediate and on-going relationship with the NPPBC or its members. Certainly one could not vouch safe that such an arrangement would even be acceptable to any of NPPBC members.
I believe our Association should not drink the....“Most nonprofits (sic.) have adopted the non-voting memberships (sic.).”…Kool Aid.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lyle Timmerman
GDPA Member & Director/State Park Volunteer
