The First Constitution
How an Average American Saves America, Part 3
Week 6: Friday
It was over a month ago that Rich blew into my house with this TDG (Tiered Democratic Governance) idea. He was always passionate about politics. The TDG had replaced his Republican Party.
And he’s got me hooked, at least a little. The TDG seems interesting. But truth be told, if I were still working, I wouldn’t have the interest to attend Rich’s meetings. But maybe there is something there, and I might have a small part to play. I might as well keep attending and see what happens.
Are we making history? Or are we just another do-gooder group doomed to failure?
We’ve had four meetings with Rich’s TDG. So far, no one seems to be fighting. Maybe that is saying something.
Rich and I spent a couple days at Camp Battenor. He is not a camper. But when one has some free time, and someone offers free recreation, why not give it a try? The weather was good. We took in some trails. We played lots of gin rummy. At a penny a point, I ended up owing Rich $7.62. He said I already paid him in beer.
At our last campfire, Rich said, “You realize we’re now a part of history?”
“Huh?”
“Just imagine that 100 or even more TDG groups are forming across the USA this month.”
“But how do we know that?”
“Is it so hard to imagine that other Americans in other neighborhoods are starting at the same place as us?”
“Yeah, but we owe all the credit to you. You were the one to stumble across Dave’s book, put some time in reading it, and start knocking on doors.”
“I’m not a superman. There are many other people wondering how the USA is going to fix this mess. A few are bound to figure out that something new has to be tried. Dave’s TDG is the only thing making sense to me. I doubt that I’m the only one.”
“Maybe,” I said, “Maybe we’re just fooling ourselves. Maybe we’re wasting our time with these TDG meetings.”
“Well, I sure wasted a lot of time at Republican Party meetings. Too many average Americans are losing out despite my efforts.”
“Why did you spend so much time there?”
“I guess I wanted to believe the Republicans had the right answers.”
“Does the TDG have the right answers?”
“Not sure yet. But it’s where I need to my spend my time for my country.”
If you like this story of Len and Rich building a new democracy for USA, you might want to start at the beginning.
Week 7: Tuesday
I wasn’t looking forward to our meeting. I remembered a few too many times when our Camp Battenor meetings got too caught up with choosing the right words to put into motions. These were times when I just wanted to leave the meeting and let the other members sort it out. I sensed that today’s TDG meeting was going to be about putting a lot of words together. But I’ve got free time these days. And maybe Rich is right: I could be part of history.
It was an interesting dynamic between Rich and Holger. They were our leaders for sure, but which one had the most influence, that was hard to tell. And they didn’t seem to care. They just wanted to get a job done.
Holger started off the formal part of our meeting: “Last week, we left off with starting to build our first constitution. Rich mentioned we need a writer to keep track of our deliberations. And it wasn’t going to be him.”
Jackie looked at me. I gave her a dirty look back.
Thelma asked, “What exactly would this writer be doing?”
Holger answered, “Because no one here has done this before, we don’t know for sure. But I suspect that the writer will write down what we’ve decided in the meeting. Then we’d later look at the written text. We would then clear up any misunderstandings. And maybe we would enhance the wording. Or even come up with better ideas.”
Thelma said, “Well, my friend Stacey has some experience with this kind of writing. I’ve worked with her in our environmental group, and she’s pretty good with shaping words.”
Stacey was beaming at this recommendation: “I’m willing.”
Holger scanned the room: “Is anyone else interested?” After a pause, he added, “Stacey, you are our writer.”
Rich handed a pad of paper and pen to Stacey: “I was prepared for someone other than me to take on this task. Thanks Stacey.”
Holger said, “If there’s no objection, I think we should just start with Dave’s list, working the items one-by-one….The first item is the TDG Principles.”
Jackie asked, “What would be the purpose of that section?”
Rich answered, “I think it would be a preamble to introduce our local TDG to other people who might be interested.”
Holger added, “And I don’t think we need to get into specific details at this point. We’ll just write them down, then see how they look later. We can always make changes.”
I had an idea: “Why can’t we just take text from Dave’s book?”
Rich said: “Because I think he wants us to learn how to work together. We need to let our opinions clash a little, then come up with something better.”
Rich changed his tone: “OK TDG builders, what should we include in our preamble?”
Jackie, “No political parties!”
Marwan, “No campaigning”
Emily, “Replacing American democracy with the TDG”
Thelma, “Replacing PEACEFULLY”
That was a good point, I thought.
Aiden, “Developing a culture of consultation.”
Rich, “Stacey, do you have enough to go on?”
Stacey, “I think so.”
Rich, “May I suggest that we let Stacey find her own words for this preamble? We can inspect her work later. There’s going to be some amending later on, so let’s not get attached to getting this preamble right the first time.”
That seemed like a good idea. People wanted to move on.
Holger continued, “Next item to go into our constitution: humanistic principles.”
I was quizzical: “What’s meant by humanistic principles?”
Holger said: “It could be what we stand for — other than building our TDG. For example, we could use some of the principles of our current Constitution: freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. Maybe there are some more modern principles we could include.”
“Like protection of the environment,” chimed in Thelma.
That comment bothered me: “Our country is not exactly united behind many principles these days. If we ourselves cannot come to an agreement, we could lose half our group in one evening.”
Holger confirmed, “Good point Len.”
Jackie came out of her shell: “I remember reading that part of the book. I think Dave wanted us to use the humanistic principles as a way to keep out people who are not ready for the TDG.”
Holger added, “Here’s my take. We can’t build a culture of consultation if we have one or two people who insist that their viewpoints are much superior to those who they disagree with. If our TDG has a couple of people like this, some of us won’t be here next week.”
“And the TDG is stopped almost as soon as it’s started,” I surprised myself for coming to that conclusion.
Jackie had the answer: “Dave recommends that early TDG’s just adopt two principles: racial equality and gender equality.”
Holger added, “But we are free to add more. Or even have no principles at all. It’s all our choice.”
Stacey said, “Maybe these two qualities are a good start to finding people with a more consultative mindset.”
Marwan asked, “Doesn’t this Dave ever tell us exactly what to do?”
Holger said, “He has some basic guidelines. But he insists that each TDG needs to design itself”.
I like things to be simple: “Let’s go with Dave’s recommendations.”
After a short pause, Holger concluded for us: “I think we have consensus. Stacey, can you work some words to that effect?”
“No problem.”
Holger moved the discussion forward: “Item Number 3, Boundaries. Guess what? Rich found us a big map of Riverbend to help us out.”
From a bedroom, Rich brought out a flipchart stand with the map. There was Riverbend in all its glory: a town of 15,000 people. 15,000 good people. I loved this town. My eye went to my neighborhood of Gull Lake. Rich, Emily, Jackie, and I lived there.
Holger gestured to the map: “I believe all of us here tonight live in the Northwest section of Riverbend. When I look at this map, I see some natural boundaries that could define the Northwest, where we all live.” His hand traced over the Battenor River. “Here is our southern boundary”. Then he traced the Interstate highway. “And here is our eastern boundary. The town limits make the north and west.”
I got flustered again: “This part of town probably has two or three thousand people. I thought these TDG neighborhoods were supposed be around 200 people.”
Holger added, “According to the last census, 3,255 people live in this part of Riverbend. So you’re right, Len. It seems our area is too big. We have an important decision to make soon. But before we decide, I think we need to get some facts. Let’s see, there are 10 of us here tonight. Where do we all live? I shall list the neighborhood in the Northwest. When I say the name, if you reside there, just shout it out. This’ll be a quick census.”
Holger’s census went like this:
1. Gull Lake: 4
2. Oxbow: 2
3. Nipawin: 2
4. Davidson: 1
5. Creighton: 1
6. Loon Lake: 0
7. Grenfall: 0
8. Senlac: 0
Holger summarized, “Of all these neighborhoods, only Gull Lake is in a position to move the TDG forward. And even it will need a few more people before it can start writing its own constitution.”
Rich added, “I fully covered Gull Lake in my door-to-door canvassing. I’m not sure if there are more people in this neighborhood ready to accept this new way. Heck, I had a hard time convincing Len to come.”
I was inquisitive: “How much did you canvas?”
“Maybe it was six evenings in total. I stopped when it looked like my living room was gonna be full, as you can now see.”
Thelma got us back on topic: “Holger, you were saying that we had to make a decision.”
“Two paths as I see it,” Holger responded, “First, each neighborhood can now go its own separate TDG. People will have to find more TDG-friendly neighbors before it can start writing its own constitution. Or we can call ourselves a district, which is a group of neighborhoods, according to Dave’s book. We then write our constitution based on this district with these eight neighborhoods.”
And again I was confused: “So we’re going bigger when we should start small?”
Holger responded, “Dave’s intent seems to be to start small. But it doesn’t seem practical with our current members and their residences.”
Thelma got us back on track again: “If I am to paraphrase Holger, either we could break off into individual neighborhoods, each writing its own constitution, or we build the TDG with an electoral unit much bigger than a neighborhood. Is that correct Holger?”
Holger confirmed, “Yes, that is correct. Does anyone have an opinion on this?”
I spoke up: “Well, I’m not too keen on door-to-door canvassing in our neighborhood to get our Gull Lake numbers up high enough to start writing our own constitution.”
Betty added, “This is only my second meeting with you people. I see you’ve built up a good rapport with each other. It would be a shame to lose that rapport by dissolving this group.”
And I had another point: “Although we haven’t gotten too far with this constitution, maybe we should continue to see where it goes. We might find later that smaller groups are better.”
Holger seemed to have summarized our thoughts: “If nothing else, we’ll get good practice for building constitutions if we decide later to separate into smaller groups.”
There was a little contemplative pause. Then Rich spoke, “We seem to have some consensus. Can I just clarify that we’re taking the direction of a district as opposed to several neighborhoods?”
Emily solidified her husband’s question: “I think that’s where we’re at.” Everyone understood that we had made an important decision.
Holger concluded, “Stacey, can you put some words down for the boundaries and the designation of ‘district’ as part of our draft constitution?”
Stacey affirmed this request.
Before we closed the meeting, Stacey passed a paper and pen around the room to get our email addresses.
Week 7: Friday
Stacey sent us an email.
Hello NW Riverbend TDGers.
Here is the first draft of the first part of our constitution. Please read to prepare yourself for the next meeting.
I have taken a few liberties with this draft. If they are not acceptable, I would have no trouble getting the wordage changed out in a future meeting. My apologies in advance.
Stacey
FIRST DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE TDG DISTRICT OF NORTHWEST RIVERBEND
SECTION 1: TDG PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe that American democracy is failing us. We are striving to build a new replacement system of governance based on the TDG principles of (1) no political parties, (2) democratically elected representatives based on good character and capacity for governance, (3) no electioneering, and (4) a culture of consultation. We believe that we can build this system of governance to peacefully assume authority and responsibility of our current elected institutions.
SECTION 2: HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe in:
1) The equality of the male and female genders.
2) The equality of all races in America.
We will strive to minimize prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.
SECTION 3: BOUNDARIES
This TDG district shall encompass the northwest section of Riverbend. Exact boundaries shall include:
· Battenor River to the south
· Interstate I-XX to the east
· Riverbend’s municipal boundaries to the north and west.
This TDG district shall include the Riverbend neighborhoods of: (1) Gull Lake, (2) Oxbow, (3) Nipawin, (4) Davidson, (5) Creighton, (6) Loon Lake, (7) Grenfall, and (8) Senlac. We plan to eventually have these neighborhoods elect their own representatives.
I was expecting so much legal wording that I wouldn’t be able to understand. But so far this document is very straight forward and seemed to summarize our meeting quite well. I was impressed with Stacey’s work and Holger’s foresight for taking the actual writing out of the meeting. Writing this constitution is not as difficult as I had thought. The next time Camp Battenor needs to have some legal work done, maybe these two can help us out.
Week 8: Tuesday
Tonight, we are having our sixth TDG meeting. It seems so long ago that we had our first meeting.
Our TDG has a core group, yet a few people are moving in and out with each meeting. Maybe that movement is normal.
Holger started the formal meeting: “First off, I’d like to thank Stacey for putting together the first draft of our constitution and getting it out to us in a timely manner. Are there any comments?”
Rich had one: “Hey, I really appreciate your writing. An uneducated fellow like me could follow it without too much effort.”
Emily added, “I don’t want to be critical at this point, but I think we should put the names of the neighborhoods in alphabetical order, just to give the impression that we’re not favoring one neighborhood over the other.”
Stacey said, “Good idea, that will be an easy change to make.”
Joe Straze, a new person to our TDG said, “Looking at this document, I would say that you people need to be a little stronger in Section 2. Maybe replace “minimize” with “eliminate.”
Rich added, “I can see another way to make that stronger. Let’s put in a clause that emphasizes both the TDG members and the TDG itself.”
Stacey started jotting a phrase on her pad: “Would this work?….‘We, as individuals and as an organization, will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.’”
Holger concluded, “Are there any objections?….No, there don’t seem to be. Stacey can you make these changes for the next draft?”
Just then my pager went off. Fire call. I gave a quick good-bye and left. A short run to my place; into my pickup truck; traffic was light; in my firefighting gear in 12 minutes. There is an advantage to living in a small town.
We had a garage fire to attend to. The owner was an amateur knife maker and had set up a forge in his garage. There are times when I don’t like government regulations, but someone should be inspecting these guys’ equipment.
Lefty Jones was the driver of the fire truck tonight. We were all business on the trip out and while putting out the fire. But we chatted on the way home.
Lefty found some part-time work with a small construction company driving a delivery truck for building supplies and hauling waste to recycling or the landfill. “About 20 hours a week,” he said, “Not quite paying the bills, but that pay is still better than working in the doughnut shop five days a week.”
I told him about my involvement with the TDG. I didn’t really impress him, but I find it hard to find the words to describe the TDG.
Week 8: Thursday
Stacey sent another email:
SECOND DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE TDG DISTRICT OF NORTHWEST RIVERBEND
SECTION 1: TDG PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe that American democracy is failing us. We are striving to build a new replacement system of governance based on the TDG principles of (1) no political parties, (2) democratically elected representatives based on good character and capacity for governance, (3) no electioneering, and (4) a culture of consultation. We believe that we can build this system of governance to peacefully assume authority and responsibility of our current elected institutions.
SECTION 2: HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe in:
3) The equality of the male and female genders.
4) The equality of all races in America.
We, as individuals and as an organization, will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.
SECTION 3: BOUNDARIES
This TDG district shall encompass the northwest section of Riverbend. Exact boundaries shall include:
· Battenor River to the south
· Interstate I-XX to the east
· Riverbend’s municipal boundaries to the north and west.
This TDG district shall include the Riverbend neighborhoods of: (1) Creighton, (2) Davidson, (3) Grenfall, (4) Gull Lake, (5) Loon Lake, (6) Nipawin, (7) Oxbow, and (8) Senlac. We plan to eventually have these neighborhoods elect their own representatives.
SECTION 4: MEMBERSHIP
1. All members of this TDG shall have a primary residence in the district.
2. Members shall provide a mailing address to the executive committee for mailing purposes.
3. Members shall be at least 17 years old.
4. Members must be American citizens.
5. Members must affirm their acceptance of the principles in Sections 1 and 2.
6. Members cannot vote in TDG affairs until they have been members for at least 30 days.
SECTION 5: ELECTORAL RULES
1. The executive committee shall schedule an annual general meeting in the month of April. This meeting shall be the election of executive committee to serve in the next year.
2. The executive committee shall keep a record of members.
3. The executive committee shall send by mail official notice of this election meeting to all members.
4. All members attending this meeting shall be given a blank ballot.
5. Prior to voting, the current chairperson of the executive committee shall give a short speech about voting for good character and capacity for governance.
6. When voting, each member can write the name of one or two members as their choice for the executive committee. All ballots shall be placed in a ballot box.
7. When voting is finished, the ballot box shall be opened and votes shall be counted.
8. The four members who tally the most votes will constitute the new executive committee.
9. If there is a tie vote for fourth and fifth place, another round of balloting shall be conducted with these two as the only candidates.
10. The fifth place shall be recorded and may be called to serve the remainder of the term if another executive committee member can no longer serve.
Holy Shit, I thought, They got this all done in one meeting. I called Jackie over.
“Yeah, we discussed and decided on all these things. Although I think Stacey might be putting in some of her own details.”
“We can always change that later — if she got a little out of line…Why 17 years old?”
“The TDG is not asking for people to be knowledgeable about the issues of society. So we felt younger people might be pretty good judges of good character and capacity for governance.”
“In section four-six. Why 30 days before being allowed to vote?”
“Well Rich was quite impressive at this meeting. Despite his working man occupation, he’s been around party politics for a long time. He was borrowing a few things from that experience. He said the 30 days was needed in case some ambitious member wants to stack an important meeting with new members.”
“He thinks this might happen?”
“Probably not at this stage. But he said ambitious candidates and factions are sometimes looking for loopholes in the rules to get themselves elected in the party elections. With the clause in place, stacking a meeting with new members is less likely to happen. Can you imagine the confusion in such a meeting?”
“Rich might be anticipating a crisis that isn’t there yet. But the clause might be useful in a few years.”
“He was quite influential most of the evening. Everything he said made sense to us; Stacey was quite busy writing things down.”
“Was Marwan there?”
“Yes, he was. He was OK with the American citizenship clause. He can still attend our meetings. He just won’t be able to vote — for now.”
I can’t say I agree with all these clauses. But I can see them working out OK for a couple of years. Like Holger and Rich have been saying, we’ll try a few things and make changes as needed.
Week 8: Friday
Tonight is our Camp Battenor meeting. Things have been running so well that we need only meet every couple of months.
I gave my treasurer’s report. Our finances are in good shape. Campers are being responsible and paying the appropriate fees.
There are no serious problems except that environmental group wanting to shut us down again. We’re not expecting them to be successful.
But I remember the first few chaotic years. Why couldn’t we have started out Camp Battenor the same way as we started our TDG?
Initially, we had a lot of big decisions that seemed to be very critical. A wrong decision could have derailed the project. Hence, there was a lot of passion from the people with stronger opinions to steer Camp Battenor their way. Each sincerely believed that he had the right path.
But looking back now, I can now see that Camp Battenor was never going to fail because of one wrong decision. Rather the infighting would have been the more likely reason for our failure.
When I read Stacey’s draft, I have to admit that there were a few things I didn’t like. When Jackie explained the reasons for some of the decisions, my frustrations were eased. But more importantly, none of the particular clauses seemed so important that I would risk the friendships I was developing with my fellow TDG members. For example, it seems strange that we want to drop the voting age to 17. We could argue that we should stay with the standard 18 years. Is that not considered the age of maturity in the USA? Why should we be so different? Regardless, I really can’t see our TDG failing because we reduced the voting age to 17. We’ll try it out for a few years, see how it works, and make changes if needed.
Week 9: Tuesday
Holger started the meeting: “Thanks again to Stacey for putting our new draft together and giving us a visual cue to reflect on for this meeting…. Are there any comments for this second draft?”
Emily had a question: “What do we mean by affirming the principles in Section 1 and 2?”
Rich said, “Remember that we only want people who are willing to work within these principles?”
Emily said, “I know that! But how do we get affirmation? For example, should we ask the potential member to swear an oath that he or she is not a racist?”
Holger confirmed, “Yes, I now see we haven’t thought that through all the way.”
Emily went further: “Should we get them to stand and give a verbal statement? Should we get them to sign a form? Should we make them take a test?”
Rich said, “In the Republican Party, it was a fairly easy process to become a member. We really didn’t ask for much.”
I added, “If we force people to take these kinds of tests, we’ll sure scare away some good potential members. I don’t think anyone wants to prove he or she is not a racist.”
Holger was thinking: “Maybe before we put their name on a membership list, the potential members should be introduced to these two sections. After reading these principles, the potential members can agree to join.”
I asked, “Should we put that into our constitution?”
Rich said, “There may be different ways of ensuring this message gets out. We could even put up a poster in all our meetings. We could send a letter after they join to make sure they understand.”
Holger said, “Maybe we should leave the affirmation process to the executive committee. This would give them flexibility in how to address this issue.”
I added, “And I’m not sure this is going to be a big problem in the next year or two. I like Holger’s suggestion.”
There was a pause.
Holger concluded the issue: “If there’s no objection, let’s not introduce an affirmation of principles into our constitution. And thank you Emily, for bringing this topic to our attention. It was useful to think about this.”
Holger moved the meeting forward: “Now we need to talk to about the executive committee. Last meeting, we decided on four members for our executive committee. Are there any more thoughts on this number?”
“It sounds reasonable to me,” I added, “We can always change it later.”
“OK, four seems to be where we are at…. Do we want to set up the traditional officers — such as secretary, treasurer, etc. — in our constitution?”
I had some experience in that matter: “In our Camp Battenor group, we kind of did away with direct election of the officers. Rather, we elect our executive committee. Then that committee decides what needs to be done and who is best to do it.”
Stacey said, “You belong to Camp Battenor?”
“Yes, I’ve been a member since it started. Now I’m the treasurer. We have a membership person who also deals with secretary duties. Our president keeps the meetings going and is the official spokesperson of the group. And we have one executive member called the caretaker. He makes sure things get done on the site, usually by co-ordinating volunteers and contractors. And right now, there are two executive members with no official duty, but they usually fill in for ad-hoc activities.”
Rich said, “So the membership of Camp Battenor doesn’t directly elect the officers?”
“Yes, the executive members assign the duties amongst themselves after they are elected.”
“It sounds like you guys already built a partial TDG. From what you’ve told me previously, you have a reasonable consultative culture in place…. So how do you guys conduct your elections?”
I didn’t have an exact answer: “Elections? Well we do have an annual general meeting. But how it usually goes is that when an executive member decides not to serve any longer, he gives notice so the other executive members can find a replacement. When they find someone who is agreeable to them and is willing to serve, they create a new executive committee, which just present themselves on election day. We go through some Robert’s Rules of Order stuff, and that group is elected by acclamation.”
Rich said, “What happens if two factions appear in Camp Battenor? How would you guys decide which group gets to rule?”
“I have no answer to that. The exact mechanism is probably in our bylaws or in Robert’s Rules. But it’s been so long since leadership was contested that I’m not sure anyone really knows anymore.”
Thelma said, “That sounds pretty similar to the two volunteer boards I belong to.”
Holger redirected, “This is a nice conversation. I like the idea that membership doesn’t directly elect their officers. I can see our TDG elections taking a lot longer if we elect a president, then vice-president, etc.”
“Plus, the members may not put the best possible people in these executive committee positions. I have seen a few misplaced executive members in lower levels of the Republicans. Let the executive committee figure out the roles and who should do them,” Rich added.
“So this takes us to the next item on Dave’s list: the authority and responsibility of the executive committee.” Holger sure likes keeping us on track.
Thelma said, “I don’t really see much difference between many current volunteer boards and our TDG. The executive committee makes most of the decisions. The membership is not involved that much.”
Emily added, “I don’t anticipate getting elected to this TDG. For sure, I don’t want to be bothered with every small decision.”
Rich added, “And let the people who are more on top of our TDG’s activity make the decisions. Asking people who don’t have much of the bigger picture will lead to decisions that are not-so-good.”
Holger spoke up: “It seems the consensus is to give full authority and responsibility to the executive committee. I should just add that sections 8 and 9 require approval from the membership. But everything else is under the realm of the executive committee.”
No further discussion. “Stacey, can you put that in your notes?”
“Next item: quorum! If we have four executive committee members, how many of them are required to be at the executive meeting to effect a decision on behalf of our TDG?”
“Three,” said Rich rather directly.
“But what if,” I challenged, “two members get sick or whatever and can’t make meetings for an extended period of time. We may need a quick decision.”
“We could solve that problem by increasing the committee to five members. Getting three out of five is easier than getting three out of four,” Rich offered, “But I think the chance of two members being unavailable and a need for quick decision is small.”
No one furthered this discussion.
“If there is no objection, let’s set the quorum at three.”
Holger went on: “One thing Dave did not mention is a tie vote. It’s quite possible that a particular issue may have a 2-to-2 split. I think we should put some mechanism in the constitution for the committee to resolve a tie vote.”
“How about giving the tie-breaking vote to the executive committee member who got the most votes at the annual election?” Rich offered.
“Sounds reasonable to me,” said Jackie.
“Anyone else have something to say about that?” Holger asked. A sufficient pause: “Stacey can you add in the tie-breaking vote?”
“And on we go,” said Holger. “Section 7. Advisors.”
Rich said, “Advisors are appointed people in the TDG. They don’t have much power, but they can be influential. From my reading of Dave’s book, advisors should have some experience in the elected side of the TDG.”
Thelma added, “If we’re starting from nothing, maybe we just can’t find those experienced people at this time.”
Holger added, “I got the sense from Dave’s book that we could skip this section if we wanted. If there is no objection, I recommend we go to Section 8.” He paused.
Holger moved on: “Section 8: Amending our Constitution.”
“Yeah,” said Rich, “This is quite important. We’ll likely be making amendments to our constitution. We shouldn’t leave these amendments to the discretion of the executive committee.”
“Why not?” I asked. “After all we’re trusting the entire bank account to this committee. Why can’t we let them make the amendments?”
Thelma added, “In the volunteer groups I belong to, there are processes to change our bylaws. And they require a formal meeting giving members a chance to attend and vote. However, I’ve only seen this happen once. It seemed like a rubber stamp of the executive committee’s recommendations, but they still had to go through due process.”
Rich added, “It’s a strong democratic tradition that when the rules change drastically, the changes need to be approved by the people. It is part of the check-and-balance of democracy. Amending the constitution or bylaws shouldn’t be done by a few people.”
That now made sense to me.
“Democracy also has a tradition that a decision requires a majority vote,” said Holger. “However, there are instances of a bigger majority required to effect changes. Should we go in this direction?”
“I think for really big changes, we should require a two-thirds majority,” said Rich.
Emily said, “Can you explain, honey?”
“Let’s say the executive committee is suggesting an amendment to the constitution. Thirty people show up at the meeting to discuss the amendment and cast a vote for or against. It’s simple to calculate a two-thirds majority. If the number of ‘yeas’ are at least twice the number of ‘nays,’ the amendment passes. So with 30 people voting, 20 are needed to pass the amendment. Twenty is at least twice the 10 that opposed the amendment.”
“But,” I countered, “what if the vote goes 18 to 12 for the amendment.”
“If the two-thirds majority is in place in the constitution, then that amendment would fail.”
“But 18 to 12 is still a majority decision, right?”
“But if a two-thirds majority is required, an 18-to-12 vote is not enough to effect the change. If that’s the rule, then the entire organization has to abide by it.”
“I’m not sure I like this idea,” I said, “Democracy is always about a majority getting their way.”
“Well yes and no,” countered Rich. “True democracy would evolve into mob rule of some kind. The majority is not always right — and the majority can be temporarily influenced into a bad decision. So there are various checks and balances set in place to minimize this from happening. A two-thirds majority is one of those tools.”
“But if a majority wants the change, they should get it, right?”
“OK, let’s put our TDG into this discussion. Let’s assume you are pretty influential with the executive committee and you convince them that the constitution should be amended to name you as the dictator and no more elections will ever be held.”
“Well, that sounds a little silly, but go on.”
“In order for such a change to be legal, you’ll need to call a meeting of the membership; that’s the first check-and-balance.”
“And is there another?”
“Yep. If you’ve ever attended such meetings of small organizations, you’ll know that they are usually not well attended. I was always amazed how political rallies could draw hundreds of Republicans but very few ever showed up when our internal democracy required nuts-and-bolts repairs as to how we governed ourselves.”
“So?”
Rich seemed to know what he was talking about: “If you know that attendance will be low, you just might say, ‘I only need to bring about 10 members who support me in the meeting. They’ll cast enough votes to make me the dictator.’”
“And?”
“If there is a two-thirds vote to make amendments, it becomes less likely you’ll get enough votes. So that two-thirds majority becomes a check-and-balance to minimize the chance of you becoming the dictator. In fact, if you knew that you had to earn a two-thirds majority, you’d be less likely to even try such a move.”
“If we really want a check-and-balance, why not increase it from two-to-one to three-to-one?”
“We could do that, but that would make it more difficult to pass more reasonable amendments. Democracy is always about striking some kind of balance.”
“Is two-thirds reasonable?”
Rich concluded, “Well, that’s what we are trying to decide, isn’t it?”
Stacey had something to say: “I’m looking at it in a different way. Let’s assume that we’re making an amendment and the constitution requires a simple majority. We have 30 voters, and it passes 16 to 14. I can see a few of these 16 people changing their mind a day later or a week later. In this case, we have made a big change, but the amendment no longer has majority support.”
Rich built on Stacey’s comment: “And this a good reason to use a two-thirds majority. If that super majority is attained, for sure the amendment has popular and lasting support behind it.”
I was a little thoughtful: “OK, I now see the point. But Rich, you talked about the difficulty of a needed amendment being passed with a super majority vote?”
Rich had the answer at hand: “If we have a two-thirds majority and the vote is 16 to 14, this means the amendment fails. But there’s nothing to stop the supporters of that amendment from trying again. Give things a year. It’s no big deal to propose an amendment and have it fail. Especially in the TDG.”
“I think I’m on board with a two-thirds majority for an amendment.”
Holger said, “Anyone else with comments?” Silence. “I’m sensing that we’re in agreement with a two-thirds majority of a membership vote.” A sufficient pause. “Stacey, you know what to do.”
Moving on, Holger said, “Last section: Merging TDGs!”
“Hold on there, Holger,” Rich interrupted, “We still need to discuss a couple more things on amendments.”
“You have our attention.”
First, it’s important that all members are well informed about important developments in the TDG. In Section 5 of our draft constitution, we state members need to be notified by mail of the date, time, and location of our annual general meeting to elect the executive committee. I recommend that we do the same for meetings that have constitutional amendments.”
I had something to say: “You know Rich, we at Camp Battenor never provide official notices of our meetings to our members. Those members who want to attend somehow know. For those who don’t show, they never complain about not being notified. Why should we be so concerned about contacting members within our TDG?”
“Good point Len. All I can say is that your Camp Battenor isn’t likely to grow much bigger. You guys can probably get by on not-so-tight democratic rules for a long time. But our TDG is going to grow. It’s important that our executive committee is forced to communicate important things with the membership: annual meeting, amendments, and mergers. When you force a notice to be delivered by mail, you take away the excuse ‘I didn’t know about the meeting’.”
Thelma added, “We do the same thing in my volunteer groups. I never understood why until now.”
Rich continued, “And there’s nothing to stop the executive committee from using email or posters as well. There just needs to be one constitutional requirement that proper notice was given….And I really think our first executive committee needs to start this practice from its inception. It will be important later on.”
“Rich, you said there were a couple of things to address,” said Holger. “What else?”
“These meetings also need to have a quorum to ensure sufficient oversight of the amendment. But as I mentioned earlier, members usually don’t attend such meetings. So the quorum should be set low to ensure decisions can be made, but high enough to ensure of the oversight. May I suggest 10% of total membership?”
I did some quick math: “Right now, it looks like we have about 10 people in our TDG. So we’d only need one person to get quorum.”
Rich said, “Quorum is not important right now. But there will be a day not too long from now where our TDG will have 300 people. With 10%, we would need 30 people at the meeting to make quorum. I think we would get that number. And it’s enough for oversight purposes. But don’t expect 100 members to show up.”
Holger said, “Any objections to include a 10% quorum?….None…Stacey.
Now for Section 8,” Holger tried to move on.
“I just thought of one more thing,” interrupted Rich again.
“Go ahead.”
“The way this constitution seems to be going, amendments are to be introduced by the executive committee. Which is OK by me. But in political parties and other organizations, the membership has various mechanisms to challenge the executive committee. One common challenge is a special meeting. If a certain percentage of members sign a petition, they can force a special meeting of the organization. That special meeting could include a specific instruction for the executive committee to follow, an amendment to the constitution, or even dismissal of the executive committee.”
“Hmmm,” said Holger. “I’ve heard of these before. Are they used a lot?”
“I’ve been part of one special meeting at the local Republican level. It was messy with lots of emotion and power plays. I believe the primary purpose of a special meeting is to keep the executive committee from drifting too far from the wishes of the membership.”
Holger was not so neutral: “My take is that if the TDG members are electing an executive committee that requires the threat of a special meeting, there is something wrong with the culture of the TDG.”
“And,” said Jackie, “the membership can elect a different executive committee if the current one gets out of touch.”
“I agree,” concurred Rich. “I just thought I would throw this concept into our meeting to see what happens.”
“Is there any interest in putting special meetings into our constitution?” asked Holger. “No….Now for Section 9.”
Holger started a little speech: “This meeting seems to be our longest so far. But we’re almost done. So bear with us for a little longer. If you’ve read Chapter 6 of Dave’s book, you’ve realized that each local TDG starts out as an independent organization. For all we know, there may be other TDGs in Riverbend going through the same process as us. But as we grow and mature, we are to merge with those TDGs, and eventually there’ll be just one TDG in Riverbend, then the state, then the country.”
He continued: “So, when two local TDGs are thinking about merging, the two executive committees will be meeting with each other. They’ll compare their constitutions and their experience with TDG governance. They’ll be writing a new constitution to reflect the merged area. Even though the executive committees must approve of the constitution, both TDGs still need to get approval from their members, as per the rules of their respective constitutions. So Section 9 is about the conditions for the members to approve of the merger and adopt the new constitution.”
There was silence. Holger asked, “Should we leave this section for next week?”
I had an idea: “Why not just use the same rules for Section 9 as we used for Section 8?
Then I added some humor: “Otherwise we might have to kill Rich.” That got some chuckles.
Rich said, “Using the same words is a good idea. Let’s get that into our third draft and see what it looks like. I may be old and unemployed, but I’m too young to die.” More chuckles.
And Holger closed with his usual technique: “Any objections to using the Section 8 rules for Section 9?…. No….It’s in your hands Stacey…..We are done for tonight.”
All of us had a great sense of accomplishment.
Week 9: Wednesday
Rich invited himself in again. He brought in coffee and doughnuts from local coffee shop: just the way this firefighter likes them. “That was some meeting last night.”
“Yeah, I usually look for an excuse not to deal with legal wording. But our meeting was kind of fun — and we got a lot done. I remember the debate we had on how to finance Camp Battenor. It took three meetings to sort out the fee structure. And at the end, everyone was mad at each other for a few months.”
“Sometimes these meetings can bring out the worst in people,” said Rich.
I changed the subject: “Rich, you seem to know a lot about politics — at least a side of politics many of us don’t know much about. How did you get this experience?”
“As you know, I was a big supporter of the Republican Party. I think for 25 years. You could call it my hobby. But maybe it was my religion. When I wasn’t at work or with family, I was doing things for the Party. Probably at least one meeting a week. More often when an election was coming up.
He continued, “I was a foot soldier for the Party. I did what was asked of me. I put up a lot of lawn signs. I canvassed neighborhoods to find supporters. Between elections, I served on local boards for the Party. Like your executive committee at Camp Battenor, there really wasn’t much of an election. There was an empty seat, and I was a willing warm body to fill it.
“I didn’t have any sense that I could influence our local agenda. That was left to smarter people than me. But I was their overseer. They had to sell their ideas to me to get my vote. I was satisfied with that responsibility.”
I asked: “Did you advance very far in the Party?”
“Well take a look at my last job. I would read an order list, put the right number and right kind of temperature gauges in a box, put in some bubble wrap, put the right address on the box, and arrange for a shipper. Do people like me rise high in politics? No, when a job is real important for the Party, someone like me isn’t going to do it.”
“Why is that?”
“There’s a lot of competition for middle managers in a political party. These positions create a network for business people and lawyers and consultants to meet and connect. And taking on these positions helps them become known to elected politicians. Working people like me just won’t get these middle positions. We have no favors to give.
“So, when I was sitting in these many board meetings, I learned a few things about how parties organize themselves, at least at the local level. Many long-time Republicans never get this experience. They just want to attend rallies and vote at internal party elections. I think democracy is much bigger than that.”
I added, “Well, that experience has sure paid off for us.”
“Yeah, it almost seems that I had been trained by the Republicans to help build the TDG.”
Week 9: Thursday
Stacey sent another email:
THIRD DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE TDG DISTRICT OF NORTHWEST RIVERBEND
SECTION 1: TDG PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe that American democracy is failing us. We are striving to build a new replacement system of governance based on the TDG principles of (1) no political parties, (2) democratically elected representatives based on good character and capacity for governance, (3) no electioneering, and (4) a culture of consultation. We believe that we can build this system of governance to peacefully assume authority and responsibility of our current elected institutions.
SECTION 2: HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe in:
1. The equality of the male and female gender.
2. The equality of all races in America.
We, as individuals and as an organization, will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.
SECTION 3: BOUNDARIES
This TDG district shall encompass the northwest section of Riverbend. Exact boundaries shall include:
1. Battenor River to the south
2. Interstate I-XXX to the east
3. Riverbend’s municipal boundaries to the north and west.
This TDG district shall include the Riverbend neighborhoods of: (1) Creighton, (2) Davidson, (3) Grenfall, (4) Gull Lake, (5) Loon Lake, (6) Nipawin, (7) Oxbow, and (8) Senlac. We plan to eventually have these neighborhoods elect their own representatives.
SECTION 4: MEMBERSHIP
1. All members of this TDG shall have a primary residence in the district.
2. Members shall provide a mailing address to the executive committee for mailing purposes.
3. Members shall be at least 17 years old.
4. Members must be American citizens.
5. Members must affirm their acceptance of the principles in Sections 1 and 2.
6. Members cannot vote in TDG affairs until they have been members for at least 30 days.
SECTION 5: ELECTORAL RULES
1. The executive committee shall schedule an annual general meeting in the month of April. This meeting shall be the election of executive committee to serve in the next year.
2. The executive committee shall keep a record of members.
3. The executive committee shall send by US Post official notice of this election meeting to all members.
4. All members attending this meeting shall be given a blank ballot.
5. Prior to voting, the current chairperson of the executive committee shall give a short speech about voting for good character and capacity for governance.
6. When voting, each member can write the name of one or two members as their choice for the executive committee. All ballots shall be placed in a ballot box.
7. When voting is finished, the ballot box shall be opened and votes shall be counted.
8. The four members who tally the most votes will constitute the new executive committee.
9. If there is a tie vote for fourth and fifth place, another round of balloting shall be conducted with these two as the only candidates.
10. The fifth place shall be recorded and may be called to serve the remainder of the term if another executive committee member can no longer serve.
SECTION 6: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
1. The executive committee shall have authority and responsibility for all affairs of this TDG except amendments to the constitution.
2. Quorum of executive committee is three members.
3. The executive committee is encouraged to attain a consensual decision. If consensus cannot be attained, a majority vote shall constitute the decision. If there is a tie vote, the member with the most votes at the annual meeting shall have the tie-breaking vote.
SECTION 7: ADVISOR
The executive committee can appoint an advisor to this TDG district.
SECTION 8: AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION
1. The executive committee has the authority to formulate amendments to the constitution. When the drafting of an amendment is finalized and the executive committee approves the amendment, the executive committee shall send notice of the amendment meeting to all members by US Post.
2. Quorum of this meeting to amend the constitution shall be at least 10% of the membership.
3. Ratification of the amendment must be by a two-thirds vote of this TDG.
Section 9: MERGING TDGs
1. The executive committee has the authority to investigate and negotiate a merger with a neighboring TDG. When the draft of the new constitution for the merged area has been finalized and approved by the executive committee, the executive committee shall send notice of the merger meeting to all members by US Post.
2. Quorum of this meeting to merge the TDGs shall be at least 10% of the membership.
3. Ratification of the merger must be by a two-thirds vote of this TDG.
4. If the other TDG also ratifies, the TDGs will be considered merged and the new constitution shall prevail over this constitution.
I took some liberties with Section 7. Rather than not have any provision for an advisor, I left the position open for us to use if we wanted. We can change it if we get some consensus for another direction.
Stacey
Week 9: Friday
Holger sent an email.
Hello all NW Riverbend TDGers
I trust you have taken or will soon take some time to inspect Stacey’s draft. I believe that she has done a fine job in getting the essence of our last meeting on paper.
There may be some minor points yet to make. I recommend that we leave these points for after the election of our first executive committee. Let this committee deal with these points, so we can move forward with our TDG.
So I recommend that at our next meeting, we formally ratify this document.
Then we need to set up a meeting to elect our first executive committee. If they want, they can work on amendments to this constitution.
BTW, I’m in favor of Stacey’s suggested change for Section 7.
Holger
Week 9: Saturday
Rich sent us an email.
Hello All
After I reviewed the recent draft, I found a couple of ambiguities in Section 8.3 and 9.3. In both clauses, the phrase “two-thirds vote of this TDG” can be interpreted as all the members voting for an amendment or merger. If we have 300 members, then the constitution seems to suggest that 200 need to vote for the affirmative. I’m pretty sure we won’t get 200 members to that meeting to cast a vote.
Rather I suggest that we rephrase these two clauses as:
8.3: Ratification of the amendment must be a two-thirds vote of members attending this meeting.
9.3: Ratification of the merger must be a two-thirds vote of members attending this meeting.
There may be more gremlins in our constitution, but I can’t see them right now. Fortunately, our organization is not as intense as our local Republican or Democrat councils. I don’t anticipate much infighting in our TDG, at least for the next few years. We have time to try this constitution and see how it works. The amending formula allows us to make whatever changes we might need.
We are doing something different than political parties. Let’s ratify our constitution sooner rather than later so we can try out some of our new paths.
I too recommend an election shortly after our ratification.
Rich
Week 10 Tuesday
Eleven of us were gathered in Rich’s living room. There was a heightened sense that something great was happening.
Holger led us: “Thank you all for coming here today. Thanks to those who have participated in building this document for the past three meetings. Thanks to Stacey for putting our deliberations into written form.”
He continued, “As you know, I’ve sent out an email about my preference for ratifying our document tonight. However, I don’t wish to impose my will on the rest of you. So I’ll conduct this meeting in a more formal democratic style than our previous meetings. Feel free to speak about delaying the ratification.”
“First off, if anyone wants the job of chairing this meeting, I am ready to stand for election.”
Pause. No challengers.
“You’ve all had a chance to review the document through email. Is there anyone here who needs more time to inspect this document?”
Pause.
“In an email, Rich recommended changing some wording in Section 8.3 and Section 9.3. Does anyone have any objections about his suggested changes?”
Betty asked, “Could we just have a quick summary of those changes?”
Rich spoke up, “Sure. Basically, we’re are adding the words ‘members attending the meeting’ to both clauses. In that way, there’s no confusion with ‘all members’.”
Holger allowed a little pause: “Then if there are no objections, Stacey can you make these changes to our draft constitution.”
Stacey started handwriting the changes to the ‘master’ constitution. She read them out loud.
“Does anyone have any further concerns about these two clauses?”
Pause
“Any other clauses?”
Pause.
“Are there any suggestions for improving this document?”
Pause.
“Are there any objections for proceeding to a vote?”
Pause.
“I will now call for a vote. All in favor of ratifying — with Rich’s two amendments — the Constitution for the Northwest District of Riverbend?”
Holger counted nine raised hands.
“All opposed?”
No hands appeared. Holger and Marwan had abstained.
“I hereby proclaim that our constitution is now ratified.”
There was elation in Rich’s living room. Not only had we accomplished something great in three weeks, we had a sense of a new political direction.
Stacey interrupted the celebration: “May I suggest that we all sign the last page with our names, addresses, and today’s date. I think this is going to be a historical document.”
“Just like the Founding Fathers” said Rich. “And just to be more legal, maybe everyone should initial each page, especially around those two handwritten changes.”
Holger passed the document to Stacey: “You first.”
“One more thing,” continued Holger, “I suggested having our next election next week. Are there any objections?”
None.
“Remember, no electioneering for the next week,” said Rich. “We are trying to do something different.”
I didn’t think anyone in our group was going to do any electioneering.
Emily and Jackie brought out some refreshments. Our new constitution was making its way around the room to be signed.
Mrs. Hodgeson spoke for the first time: “Thank you all for putting this together. I know the USA has made an important step tonight.”
She reached into her bag and pulled out a stack of bills. She handed them to Holger. “I’m donating $1000 to help our organization in whatever steps it needs to take.” Our first donor!
Everyone cheered!
It was a good party!
