This Is our Village

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

The UCO BYLAWS - A Major Policy Change in Review

I have read David's post and the comments which follow. I will not comment on the repaving project, the whistle blower who went to Code Enforcement, the restructuring of the UCO Budget, the technological advances which brought UCO into the 21st Century.

I do although feel that it is important and instructive to briefly clarify the statement “The U.S. President picks his own cabinet” since many individuals have the tendency to model UCO after the U.S. government structure. The president appoints cabinet officers as well as many other members of the federal judiciary. Once the president announces the nominees/appointees the Legislative Branch then conducts Senate Confirmation Hearings where members of the Senate interview and question each nominee to ensure that each is well qualified. The Senate then votes to confirm or disapprove each nominee. This keeps the Executive Branch from nominating people who might support only the political views and agenda of the president. At the same time, it allows the president the ability to choose qualified, fair people to work in key positions within the government. This system of Checks and Balances is used to limit the powers of the President.

This system (of Checks and Balances) has been unanimously approved by the President, the Advisory Committee, Officers' Committee, Executive Board and by the Delegate Assembly. So that everyone is on the same page, I will briefly provide the background information which is necessary in order to gain an accurate picture of where we stand, and where it appears that we are headed to.

1. The UCO Bylaws were amended on March 2nd, 2012. Generally speaking, and with certain named exceptions, the UCO Bylaws have historically granted the President the right to appoint [and create] all standing and special (ad hoc) committees, and more recently, to determine the mission and term of service of committees, unless otherwise provided in the Bylaws. In an attempt to achieve a greater balance of power within the administration, the Bylaws were amended so that the President would now be required to seek the advice and consent of the Officers' Committee.

2.  During the Advisory Committee meeting of May 10th, 2012, I suggested that the previously approved language, originally suggested by David, “The President, with the advice and consent of the Officers' Committee”, increased the likelihood that a deadlock would occur between these two parties when creating and appointing UCO Committees.

3.  After a period of discussion, instead of proceeding as originally planned (to apply this phrase to each committee in the UCO Bylaws, if applicable), it was unanimously decided to remove this language, and to vest the Officers' Committee with these powers, except as otherwise provided in the UCO Bylaws.

Not to be disregarded, is the Bylaw amendment also adopted on March 2nd, which gave the Executive Board, the power and authority to disapprove proposed amendments, and/or to amend them. Article XI, “Miscellaneous Provisions”, (D), “Method of Amendment” now reads as follows.
“The Executive Board, after due deliberation, shall either approve or disapprove the amendment proposal. The amendment proposal, if approved as presented or as amended, shall then be published in the next issue of the UCO Reporter and shall be read and considered by the Delegate Assembly at the meeting immediately following its publication.”

UCO is presently moving toward a major policy change which will require very serious consideration by all parties. There are no Bylaw amendments which can eliminate bureaucratic infighting within the UCO Administration. There are no Bylaw amendments that can ensure that the President of UCO and the other seven Officers of UCO will work together in harmony, regardless of their differing views and personality differences. There are no Bylaw amendments which will convince them to embrace the concept of compromise, and to consistently work toward achieving goals which are in the best interest of our Village. These resolutions can only take place within ourselves, which would require a major change as well.


  1. Hi all,
    Very nice! But soon this UCO President will select/appoint/nominate absolutely no one to anything; so why have a President at all?

    I guess it's the awful dictatorial and secret way I have conducted UCO business over the past two years!

    Why waste time, just remove all Presidential authority completely in one action.

    Dave Israel

  2. In the United States, czars are generally executive branch officials appointed by the President either with Senate approval or without it. So, let's have Dave appoint czars ----any by laws against that? Dave has accomplished miracles in a short timne - moving us forward with technology and transparency ---the naysayers never say die. For those who just plain don't like Dave, he will never do anything right in their eyes. They must stay up at night conjuring up ways to inhibit his ability to function.

  3. Mag, I agree with your comments!!!! megaphyl

  4. Thx Randall - so the Del Assy wandered into a swamp, and seeing problems ahead the answer is to go deeper into the swamp with 7 officers to argue and dig deeper! Have you noticed we are not the U.S. Govt. stop dreaming. The President should be the final authority, he knows who is qualified, he listens and compromises, and leads. We are lucky to have him, do not waste him.

  5. The March 2 by-law change should be revisited and removed. I did not vote for it on purpose. B.C. is oversight chair of far too many committees. She cannot possibly do a good job with all those hats. David should be oversight because he has the experience to know how to do oversight without wading in and telling the committee what to do. That is the way a leader leads.

    Bob was a middle manager at Digital where we retired from. He was a good manager. He hired good people and let them do the job for which they were hired. If they got stuck with something he was there to either help them or point them in the direction the get the help that they needed. He respected the people who worked for him and the ones higher up whom he worked for. He did not try to undermine anyone.

    The delegates need to do their homework and learn what is happening. The Majority voted for David which is good. This insidious plan to take over and destroy the UCO structure which is finally looking professional is an outrage.

  6. P.S. Bob was a good manager and a good UCO President. He does not have the technical skills that David has which is why I say David is the best.

  7. Dear Mollie, I would like to make you aware that Mr. Marshall is oversight of 3 committees, Mr. Guarnagia is oversight of 3 committees, I am oversight of 3 committees, Ms. Richland is oversight over 7 committees and Mr. Israel is over 5 committees. I will be glad to tell you the name of all the committees. You are welcome to call me. I am sorry that you feel I can't do a good job. David has the power to change any oversight of a committee as he sees fit. He is the one that assigned these oversight committees to us. Maybe you should tell him your feelings. I think you should attend the advisory committee on thursday, May 17th and voice your opinion. Mollie,you might have not voted for this change but the majority of the delegates did. If the delegates feel this is wrong they can change it.

  8. thank you ,barbara, for pointing out the 7 committees that i am supposed to OVERSEE. first of all i do not oversee these committees. i act as in an advisory capacity. if the chairs need help i am there for them. i do not interfere in the choosing of the members of the committees . the chairs have been chosen by the president and i am confident that they are capable of doing the right job for the village and for their people. if i am not mistaken one or two of these committees are ad hoc and areot fully active unless called for. yes, as a vice president i can sit on any committee as any vice president can but i will not impose my willm or any influance unless called for.

  9. Humble apologies, Phyllis

    I was only pointing out that our President assigned these committees. which he has the right to do. We do not choose them. I am sorry if some people think the worst when just pointing something out.

  10. Hi all,
    I did indeed agree with the "advice and consent" language, in fact, I suggested it.

    I am emphatically opposed to removal of this language, as it leaves the President with NO real authority to appoint at all, and no authority to block political patronage appointments.

    This latest variant of this Bylaw will start a slide toward making the Office of the Presidency superfluous.

    On the issue of what "Committee Oversight" means; it is exactly as described by Phyllis Richland above.

    The operational control of Committees lie with the Committee Chairs. The Oversight Officers are assigned to provide consultation in the case of difficult situations.

    Dave Israel


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.