The First Representatives
How an Average American Saves America, Part 4
Week 11: Tuesday
The same 11 people attend this meeting as our ratification meeting. I thought this was a good thing.
Rich started our meeting: “As you know, we’ll be electing our first executive committee for the Northwest Riverbend TDG District. We’re charting a new path for the USA and eventually the rest of the world. I’d even say that our vote tonight is more important than our vote in the next presidential election. Our executive committee will be helping to move the world to a better place. I’m not sure about any of today’s politicians.”
Rich continued, “Part of the culture of the TDG is no electioneering. There should be no lawn signs or pamphlets or slogans or bragging. There should be no campaigning that suggests ‘Vote for me’ or ‘Vote for him or her.’ Instead the TDG way is to have all voters base their vote on good character and capacity for governance. We should look at the past history of our current members — who I think are all here tonight. Even though most of us here have known each other only for short time, we should base our vote on what we have seen and heard.”
Rich then changed direction: “I should add that you shouldn’t vote for me just because I’m chairing this meeting. And to help make the point, I’ve asked Thelma to explain our new way of voting.”
Thelma stood up. You could tell she was a little nervous speaking in front of this small crowd. “Thank you, Rich. I feel honored to be part of this process.
She continued, “I think it’s quite simple. As you know, we ratified our constitution last week, and now we’re going to conduct our election based on that constitution. We are going to elect the four members of our executive committee tonight. After this election, this TDG will turn over most of its affairs to this committee.”
She stalled a little bit, then gathered her thoughts: “If you look at Rich, he has some slips of green paper.” Rich was handing them out.
Thelma continued, “You are to put the names on this paper of the two people that you believe should serve on this committee. You need to write the names in.”
“But I don’t know everyone here very well,” said Mrs. Hodgeson.
“If you know one or two people — and believe they’re of good character and capacity — you can vote for them,” responded Thelma, “You don’t need to know everyone to cast a wise vote. Just do your best.”
Jackie had a question: “Since our executive committee is made up of four people, shouldn’t we be putting four names on the ballot?”
“Uhh,” stammered Thelma. She looked at Rich.
Rich said, “Jackie, I see what you are saying. But when writing our constitution, we agreed by consensus to vote for two people, and tonight we should abide by these rules. We don’t want to set a precedent of ignoring rules. We can certainly change the rules later, but not tonight.”
Rich handed a ballot to Marwan. He refused: “I am not an American citizen yet.”
Thelma added, “And remember, you can only vote for members in our TDG.”
Betty had a concern: “But I don’t know the last names of half the people here.” Thelma looked at Rich.
Rich said, “I think first names will suffice for now. Nobody here has the same first name. When the TDG grows and we have people with similar names, it might become necessary to include a first and last name. But that’s a problem for later. For tonight, two first names will be OK.”
Some people filled out their ballot quite quickly. They waited respectfully for the others to finish. When all were finished, Thelma said, “Please fold the ballot and hand it to Rich.”
Rich held up his ballot: He said “One”. As he picked up the rest of the ballots, he counted them off: “Two . . . . Three . . .” He counted all the way to 10 with the last ballot.
Rich then said: “I’ve asked Jackie and Betty to come with me and work as ballot counters. We’ll work in the kitchen and come back with the results.”
Five minutes later, Rich returned with his two helpers: “We have the final results: Holger — 8 votes, Rich — 6 votes, Stacey — 3 votes, Len — 2 votes, and Thelma — 1 vote. So Holger, Stacey, Len, and I are the first executive committee.”
There was a small cheer.
Emily said, “I guess that frees me from all these meetings”. There were a few chuckles.
She added, “But still feel free to continue using our living room.”
If you like this story about building a new democracy, you might want to start at the beginning.
Week 11: Wednesday
I got elected with only two votes! That is somewhat amazing.
I was kind of expecting to be elected because I had been one of the more talkative people at our meetings. As well, a few people know me, and I think they think I’m a good person. But if I hadn’t been elected, that would have been OK.
Jackie assured me that I will serve our TDG well.
And I got thinking about Holger’s presentation of a few weeks back about decision making styles: power, democracy, and consultation. Up until now, our TDG deliberations have been consultative. And we just had an election where we elected a group of consultative-minded people. Even though I don’t care for politics or meetings, this TDG has been a little fun.
I have been on the executive committee for Camp Battenor for five years, serving the last four as treasurer. Our meetings are not that frequent because our organization is running quite well and there is no desire to change things. Like our TDG, the Camp Battenor meetings are also kind of fun.
But things were not like that in Camp Battenor’s early days. Then, about 30 local ATV enthusiasts found each other and formed a non-profit association for obtaining permission to camp in Battenor Wilderness Area, making our recreation more enjoyable. I was part of this group, but I was more of a cheerleader than an organizer. We had some good leaders who knew how to talk to government.
Eventually we got permission to build a campsite for ATV users to camp overnight. And that was when all the problems started. The leadership split into two factions. Two leaders wanted to build the campsite with Plan A; another two with Plan B. Both factions thought the other faction was foolish — and they were becoming hostile to each other.
I could see good and bad points for both plans. I was willing to listen to both sides, then cast my vote for the plan I thought was better. If my favorite lost, I would accept the other plan. But the two factions were just not that agreeable. They were using all sorts of Robert’s Rules as tricks to shut each other down. Our meetings became fairly unmanageable. Outside of our meetings, I got phones calls and visits from both sides to vote their way. With the passion I saw, I wondered if either faction could justify rigging the final vote.
And maybe that was what had happened. The losing faction took the association to civil court, citing election irregularities. The judge solved the problem for us. He assigned one evening for Camp Battenor to decide between Plan A and Plan B. He said only those people on the current membership could vote. And he assigned an agent with expertise in parliamentary procedures to chair the meeting.
The agent was very fair. He gave each member three minutes to talk. The leaders took their three minutes to sway the other members their way. A few more members also spoke. Then the agent called for a vote. Plan A won over Plan B.
The two Plan B leaders walked out of the meeting. They left with a prediction that Camp Battenor would fall apart within a year.
Ironically, the two Plan A leaders also left soon after we built Camp Battenor. One was in a serious auto accident and could no longer participate in ATVing; the other left for a better job in another state. Camp Battenor was no longer in their lives. I often wonder at the energy they put into getting their way but never really enjoyed the fruits of their supposed genius.
After these two fellows left Camp Battenor, the rest of us started noticing that we were getting along quite well without all those highly charged opinions. Camp Battenor moved from a democratic style of decision making to a consultative style just with the departure of a few key people! And consultation has been our culture ever since. Yet, I didn’t know much about consultation until Holger’s lecture. The membership at Camp Battenor is probably unaware of our style of decision making.
In other words, we never really planned for a consultative culture for Camp Battenor. But Dave says that we need to plan for consultation if we want the TDG to succeed. We should not assume that consultation will just happen on its own. For sure, I don’t want those early leaders of Camp Battenor around the TDG.
I also wonder if the Plan A leaders did stick around, would they have turned Camp Battenor into a power organization?
Week 11: Saturday
My family spent the weekend at Camp Battenor.
Ed Broncher was there with his family. It’s always good to see Ed. We don’t socialize that much these days. But when we do connect, it seems like only yesterday since we last saw each other. We brought our tents together, so food and cooking would be shared between our two families. The kids took off into the woods to build forts.
Eventually the small talk got around to the TDG.
“What’s that?” asked Ed.
“It’s a new form of governance. It was invented by some guy in Canada. One of my neighbors found out about it, and he convinced us to give it a try. I just got elected last week.”
“Congratulations…I think….What do you guys govern? Speed limits? National Debt? Regulations to the insurance industry?”
“We’re not there yet — and probably won’t get there for a long time. Basically, this TDG is to be a replacement system for western democracy. It’ll take some time before we have all the skills needed to make it work.”
“What skills?”
“For starters, we have to learn how to make decisions using consultation. We have to learn how to get rid of our attitude that ‘I am always right’.”
“Interesting!”
“And we have to get rid of electioneering to find the people who will govern us. Votes will be based more on good character and capacity than any kind of ideology.”
Ed was indeed interested. So was his wife Shirley. They asked quite a few more questions. Jackie and I tried our best to explain this concept. I’m not sure we did that great of a job.
“Would you like to come to our next meeting?” I asked.
“Sure,” they said.
“I’ll ask the other executive committee members if you can come. I’m sure they’ll agree, but common courtesy suggests I should ask first.”
Week 12: Sunday
I emailed Holger, Rich, and Stacey about allowing Ed and Shirley into our first executive meeting. They had no problem.
Week 12: Tuesday
We met again in Rich’s place. A little less crowded, just the four of us, plus Ed and Shirley. Emily was in the background doing some kitchen work. I introduced Ed and Shirley to the others.
Rich was the first to be official: “We welcome you here tonight. The purpose of this meeting is for our executive committee to discuss our next steps in Northwest Riverbend. You’re welcome to observe. After we’re done our meeting, we’d be more than happy to discuss the TDG with you.”
“Sounds fine by us,” said Shirley, “Len gave us some basics about 10 days ago, and Ed and I have been reading that TDG book.”
“And maybe it’s better to see how this TDG works in practice,” said Ed.
“Well, we are still practicing,” said Rich. He handed them each a copy of our constitution: “Here’s something else you can read while listening to us.”
We didn’t have an agenda planned out, but it seemed the four of us knew the topics of this meeting anyway.
The first item was to decide officers within the executive. Within a few minutes we decided that Holger was to be the chair, Stacey would handle the membership list and keep minutes, and I would be the treasurer. We didn’t find any official duties for Rich. Maybe later.
With my appointment as treasurer, Holger handed me the $1000 donation from Mrs. Hodgeson: “Len, I think you’d better set up a bank account soon.”
With the officers out of the way, Holger made a suggestion: “I think we should talk about the election itself.”
“Yeah,” said Stacey, “I think we almost had a little constitutional wreck in our first election. What if everyone had voted for Holger and Rich? How would we have determined the other two people on the executive committee?”
“I should have seen that coming,” apologized Rich, “I thought casting two votes was going to be a serious challenge for many voters, so I didn’t push for more when writing our constitution.”
He continued, “But you know what was interesting? All ballots had two names written on them. Our voters did everything correctly. Maybe TDGers already know how this works.”
Holger said, “There was a suggestion in the annual meeting to put in four names.”
Rich responded, “And it was a good suggestion. Unfortunately, our constitution clearly says two votes per ballot. We really shouldn’t change our constitution without due process.”
Stacey said, “So if we want to increase it to four votes per ballot, we need a meeting of the membership to amend the constitution?”
Rich confirmed, “Right.”
Holger summarized, “From what I’m hearing, we’re in agreement about changing the constitution to four votes per ballot — and we’ll set up an amendment meeting soon.”
Because I had not offered any opinion, I said, “Sounds good by me.”
Not surprisingly, Rich had something else to say: “Before we have that amendment meeting, we should get our membership list tightened up.”
“In what way?” asked Holger.
Rich said, “We’ll need to send an official notice by mail, so we need accurate addresses.”
Stacey responded, “Remember how we put our addresses on the ratification document? I think I can get on the internet and get the ZIP code for all these addresses.”
Holger moved us forward: “So where and when?”
Rich said, “We could do it here. I suggest that we schedule this meeting at least a month from now. In that way, we’ll fulfill the 30-day membership clause to be eligible to vote.”
I asked, “You mean we didn’t last time?”
Rich expanded his explanation: “From a legal perspective, things were a little loose. We really didn’t have an official membership list to enact our constitution and first election. But without a constitution, how do we define our members? This is sort of like how does one get a chicken without an egg or an egg without a chicken?
He paused thoughtfully: “But now we have our TDG constitution, which gives us official members. And we’ve had our first election for an executive committee, and the constitution spells out the authority of this committee has. Everything’s in place now to behave democratically — which means following the rules we’ve set up.”
Stacey tried to summarize: “So we weren’t really legal before?”
Rich said, “You could say that we were an ad-hoc organization up until our election of our executive committee. But now that doesn’t matter. Everything is in place.”
Holger got us back to business: “So we are having an amendment meeting at Rich’s place four weeks from now. The purpose of this meeting is to replace the words “two votes per ballot” with “four votes per ballot.”
No one objected, so that was our decision.
After that decision, I had something to add, but I think all four of us were thinking the same way: “I think we’re supposed to move this TDG forward somehow.”
Stacey added: “We have that $1000. Could we rent out a community center in our district and invite a bunch of people?”
Rich jumped in: “We can canvass.”
“Not me,” I said, “I’m not sure I could handle all that rejection.”
“Here’s an idea,” said Stacey, “Why not prepare a little brochure and have US Post deliver it to mailboxes?”
After a few more minutes of discussion, we decided on this action plan:
1) Hold the public meeting at Oxbow Community Center.
2) Hold the meeting on our regular TDG Tuesday anytime between four to eight weeks from today.
3) Rich will contact the Center to check availability and make arrangements.
4) Stacey will prepare the brochure and let us see it before publishing.
5) Do the maildrop just in the Oxbow neighborhood.
6) Executive committee members will pay for expenses from their own funds, later to be reimbursed.
On one hand, putting together this action plan may seem mundane or common. It may also be something that requires low skills, something that anyone can do. This meeting itself seems so trivial and unimportant. There should be no hero awards handed out.
On the other hand, the action plan is amazing. Four people were elected to do a job. Following their constitution, they worked together to chart a path. They will soon be getting things done.
These achievements — and the achievement of many civic-minded groups should never be belittled because they seem so simple and common. The process is actually not so simple — and becoming less common.
After the action plan was formalized with Stacey making some notes for the minutes, I had an idea: “Why not make this public meeting and our amendment meeting as the same meeting? Wouldn’t this demonstrate the TDG way of governance to the public?”
Rich had a concern: “If we’re holding the two meetings together, we need to ensure that only eligible members are voting for the amendment.”
I responded, “I bet you have a way of sorting this out.”
He did: “We can issue voting cards to the eligible members at the start of the meeting.”
“Voting cards?” asked Stacey.
“Yes,” said Rich. “We issue voting cards to eligible members. These cards should be about the size of our hands and quite visible when held up. When a vote is called, members vote ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ by holding up the card. Usually a visual inspection is needed to determine which way the vote has gone. But sometimes a count needs to be conducted. Our guests won’t be counted in the vote. But they can see us vote.”
“How do we hand out these voting cards?” asked Stacey.
“Set up a table that has our membership list,” said Rich. “When a member comes in, he/she comes to the table to show him or herself. When membership in verified, a voting card is issued to that member. The member’s name is crossed off the list.”
Holger added, “I think there should be instructions on how to use the cards. Those at the table should give a quick verbal lesson.”
Stacey said, “And reminders to get your voting cards before the meeting starts.”
We had a bit more discussion to set the agenda for that night. We came up with this program:
1. The brochure would include information about two meetings: the amendment meeting and the TDG public meeting.
2. Stacey will put copies of Section 1 and 2 of our constitution in our brochure as the requirements to be members of our TDG.
3. 7:15: Member registration to obtain voting cards
4. 7:30: Meeting for the amendment
5. 7:45: TDG Information meeting with Holger as the main speaker.
6. 8:30: Close the meeting. Stacey would accept new memberships.
Our executive committee meeting was over. For me, it was interesting that we actually changed our plans three times in that meeting, with each plan being better than the previous. All these changes happened in a friendly and efficient manner.
We then moved into an informal discussion with Ed and Shirley about the TDG. Holger and Rich did most of the talking.
Ed and Shirley live across the interstate in what could be called Northeast Riverbend. Northwest and Northeast are geographically about the same size, but Northeast has a large light industrial area. Zvolen Instruments was located here. Six neighborhoods are located east of the area. I think the population of the Northeast is half that of the Northwest.
Ed left us with the promise that he was going to get something started in the northeast. He said he would be asking us for assistance.
Week 13: Wednesday
Because our TDG was not a formally recognized society, my current bank would not accept an account. But I just went across the street and found a bank that was willing to take on our business. We needed to provide a copy of our bylaws (our constitution), minutes of the election for the executive committee, and minutes of the executive committee for signing authority. I said we would have the documentation in a week or two.
Rich emailed us that Oxbow Community Center is available on a Tuesday four weeks from now. He has booked the Center.
Stacey emailed us she had prepared a membership database on paper with zip codes for all 11addresses. She included Marwan.
She had also prepared a brochure. We had a few suggestions, and some changes were made. By email, we agreed to send out the same brochure to our members and the residents of Oxbow. The members would get the notice two weeks before the meeting by mail before; the residents one week before by a US postal drop.
And Stacey prepared some minutes for the bank. I got the four of us to sign them. The bank account was set up shortly after that.
The final draft our brochure is below:
A New American Democracy?
Are you frustrated with today’s political process?
Do you believe that we Americans can do better?
Would you like to work for a new kind of democracy?
Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) is a new system of governance. It has ZERO political parties. Its elections find the better people for governance. It gives our elected representatives new tools for decision making. No longer are they beholden to the moneyed interests that run our country. The TDG is for the people and by the people.
The foundation of the TDG is our neighborhoods. Neighbors elect one of their own into the lowest positions of government. From there, more tiers will be built. In time, the TDG will replace the current version of American democracy.
About two months ago, 11 citizens of Northwest Riverbend started Riverbend’s first TDG. We now have a constitution in place and an elected executive committee. We are looking for new members. We invite you to learn about this new system.
We invite you to our first public meeting:
Oxbow Community Center
37 Oxbow Drive
Riverbend
Meeting starts at 7:30 p.m.
Interested in Becoming a Member of the TDG District of Northwest Riverbend?
These are the principles you must agree to:
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.
HUMANISTIC PRINCIPLES
We members of this TDG group believe in:
1) The equality of the male and female gender.
2) The equality of races in America.
We, as individuals and as an organization, will strive to eliminate prejudice and discrimination on these fronts.
Official Notice to TDG Members of Northwest Riverbend. We are amending our constitution.
The executive committee is recommending that we amend section 5.6 of our constitution at this meeting.
Section 5.6 currently says:
When voting, each member may write the name of one or two members as their choice for the executive committee.
We recommend changing it to:
When voting, each member may write the name of one to four members as their choice for the executive committee.
This change will align with the number of votes cast (per voter) to the number of executive committee members. The executive committee believes this will better reflect the voters’ preferences.
Members, please report to the membership desk by 7:15 to get your voting card.
Amendment meeting starts at 7:30. Guests are welcome to observe.
Information Meeting starts at 7:45. Members are encouraged to invite friends.
Week 16: Tuesday
We decided to get together a week before our public meeting just to tie things up. Stacey phoned Holger to say that she was going to be delayed a half hour. I had a few questions for Holger: “You seem to be a capable chairman.”
Holger said, “I was with the teacher’s union for many years. I served on several committees — and occasionally was chairman.”
I said, “I think there’s more to your story.”
“Well,” said Holger, “the union liked using Robert’s Rules of Order. The only time it wasn’t used was in meetings with teachers at the same school, where business could be done more informally. But away from the school, the Rules become the union’s way of doing things. I have to say that my first union meetings were confusing as we seemed to be discussing rules more than issues.
He continued, “So if a teacher wants to be influential in union affairs, he or she had better get to know the Rules reasonably well. I took on this responsibility. As I gained understanding, I saw the purpose of each of the rules. They actually help organizations to discuss issues civilly and efficiently and come to some decision. I recall more than a few union meetings where the Rules kept strong-willed people somewhat civil.”
“But I don’t see you using the Rules that much,” I said.
“Well there’s a ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to your statement,” Holger said, “You may recall that I used this clause a lot: “ ‘If there is no objection . . .’ Basically the chairman can suspend the rules if there is unanimous consent from the meeting.”
This brought me to thinking about our Camp Battenor meetings. Basically, we discuss an issue. When it seems we have reached consensus, the chair will ask someone to make a motion, then ask for a seconder, then we have a vote by show of hands. Most of us find this process a bit annoying. But it seems to be so strong in our American civic culture that we just follow the tradition. I like Holger’s approach a lot more. I now see how we got through our constitution with efficiency and little pain.
“The clause ‘if there is no objection’ works a lot of the time,” continued Holger. “But the chair needs to pay attention to the mood of the meeting. And the chair really needs to communicate the clause such that it appears a decision has been made.”
He finished, “And, of course, if there is an objection by just one member, the chair has to move back to the regular rules. But a good chair knows how to suspend rules when most of the people want to suspend the rules.”
Rich had something to add to this discussion: “At the local level of the Republican Party, we employed a fairly basic set of rules. But they usually weren’t enforced that religiously. We had lots of open discussion. But there were enough rules, for sure. I was able to figure out enough of the rules and learned the proper way to say things. I think it took me a couple of years.
“But as I attended meetings at the higher levels, the rules became more rigorous — and I had trouble understanding the flow of the meeting. There were times where I couldn’t figure out whether the issues or the rules were more important.”
Holger jumped in: “And that’s the problem with parliamentary rules: they tend to alienate people who don’t understand them.”
I asked, “So why do we have them?”
Holger answered, “Because parliamentary procedures are excellent tools for separating combatants in any democratic process. With the rules employed properly, both sides have their say, the organization conducts a proper vote, and the organization moves on with the decision. Without rules, one side can prevent the organization from moving forward until that side gets its way.”
I asked, “How do all these rules fit with the TDG?”
I remembered Holger giving us the answer some time ago. He paraphrased again: “If the TDG requires rigorous application of parliamentary rules, we haven’t done a proper job of building the culture of consultation.”
Stacey arrived. She reported that the notice to the members had been mailed two days ago. US Post will put the them in the Oxbow neighborhood mailboxes tomorrow.
She asked Thelma to manage the membership table. Her tasks would be to issue the voting cards, record the members taking the cards, and provide some information on how to use the cards. Thelma said she would make 11 cards before the meeting.
Rich had an announcement. He found a job! He was going to be a receiver/shipper manager for a factory in Joosemin. Joosemin is a city of about 100,000 people about an hour’s drive northeast from Riverbend. Not only was the commuting going to be hard on Rich, he would be responsible for staying on dock if trucks were running a little late. He wasn’t sure of how much time and energy he would have for the TDG.
Holger thought of something before the meeting closed: “Len, would you like to chair the meeting for the amendment?”
“Not really,” I said.
Holger said, “I think it’ll be a good experience for you. We might need this TDG practice later.”
Rich said, “I agree. I think this amendment is going to be a rubber stamp. No fights are going to happen. You just need to convey that due democratic process is being used.”
“OK,” I said.
Week 17: Tuesday
Jackie and I got to the Oxbow Community Center at 7:00. Stacey and Thelma had already set up a membership table. We got our voting cards, and Thelma checked us off the list.
A few more members showed up, but Rich and Emily were not there.
Ed and Shirley Broncher attended. They brought some guests. Altogether there were about 30 people.
At 7:20, Holger made an announcement for members to get their voting cards for the amendment meeting.
At 7:30, Holger got everyone seated: “There are actually two meetings tonight. First is a meeting to amend our TDG constitution. This should only take a few minutes. You’re all welcome to observe. Please respect that only TDG members can vote for or against the amendment. Afterward, we’ll hold our public meeting which will entail a short talk plus take a few questions.”
He redirected, “I shall turn the amendment meeting to Len Pash.”
I had a little preamble prepared. I told Jackie to give me a dirty look if I talk too long.
“Seven weeks ago, the members of the TDG District of Northwest Riverbend ratified their first constitution. A week later we had our first election. Holger Peters, Stacey Mabrall, and I were elected to serve on the executive committee. Rich Riddell was also elected, but he couldn’t make it here tonight. In our first executive meeting, we discussed a small flaw with our electoral system, and we would like to fix it tonight. Does anyone need a copy of our constitution?”
Four people raised their hands; Stacey handed a copy of our constitution to each of them.
I continued: “First off, we need a quorum check. Under Section 8, we need a quorum of 10% of the membership to approve an amendment to the constitution. Currently the District has 10 members. I see at least six members tonight, so I proclaim that quorum has been attained.
“Go to Section 5.6, which I shall now read: ‘When voting, each member can write the name of one or two members as their choice for the executive committee.’
I gave a little pause. “The executive committee recommends to expand the ballot to allow four votes to be cast instead of two. Therefore, on behalf of the executive committee, I propose an amendment to replace the words “one or two” with “one to four.” In this way, each voter can put up to four names down as his or her preference for executive committee members.”
After a short pause, I asked, “Is there any discussion on this amendment?”
Stacey and I had arranged for her to speak at this time. She stood and summarized: “TDG elections are a little different than what we are used to in our municipal, state, and federal elections. When we built our constitution, we decided for a write-in ballot that allowed the voter to vote for two people. When we had our first election, we had two members who got most of the votes. Three other members only got a few votes. We thought we would get a better reflection of voters’ desires if we allowed four votes per ballot, which is the number of members for the executive committee.” She sat down.
“Is there any further discussion?” I asked the crowd.
“Is there anyone wanting to speak against this amendment?” I rephrased.
“Before I call for a vote, I shall remind the meeting that to amend our constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote to pass the amendment. In other words, there must be at least twice as many people approving the amendment as those who oppose it.
“If there is no further discussion, I shall call for a vote. Is there any objection?”
No objections were raised.
“All in favor?” Six voting cards were raised.
“All opposed?” No voting cards were raised.
“The amendment has been ratified.” There was a little clapping.
“I’ll now turn you back to Holger,” I concluded.
Holger used the amendment meeting for a lead-in to his talk.
“Thank you, Len for chairing that important meeting. Thank you to the public for going through this process with us.
“I’m going to admit that that amendment meeting was a little dry and boring — No offence Len, you did a fine job. But I think it’s important to know that democracy is sometimes dry and boring.
“Let me give you a list of events that led to the amendment:
“First, a constitution had to be in place.
“Second, a flaw in our electoral rules was discovered.
“Third, the elected executive committee decided that this flaw needed to be fixed. We agreed on the amendment that you just observed.
“Fourth, the elected executive committee, as per our constitution, doesn’t have the authority to make amendments to the constitution. That authority comes from the membership. So the executive committee had to call a meeting of the members to make the amendment.
“Fifth, the executive committee had to give each member reasonable notice to attend this meeting.
“And last, enough members had to attend the amendment meeting to attain quorum, but more importantly, act as an overseers to the executive committee’s deliberations.
“You saw maybe five minutes of this process. But we spent a lot more time preparing for those five minutes. It wasn’t entertaining. It wasn’t fun. It wasn’t easy. It seemed so trivial. But all that effort was a vital part of what any democracy should be about.
“And, ladies and gentlemen, we’re losing this part of democracy to theater and sensationalism and unimportant discussions, which are leading us in a wrong direction. All the political pundits out there totally forget that the foundation of democracy comes from meetings like you just saw. And these foundations are crumbling — because there is less political will to be democratic.
“We’re here tonight to discuss a new kind of democracy. Four months ago, I was introduced to a concept called Tiered Democratic Governance, often called by its acronym TDG. It has some interesting ideas, such as no political parties and no electioneering. But one thing I like about this system is that it anticipates a lot of change. According to the author, we’re going to amend our constitutions many times as we build this system. Tonight was just a small taste of how this TDG is going to evolve. Doing small repairs like this will become quite common in the TDG. It’s how we’re going to learn to be more democratic….And I’m ready to put some effort into this cause.”
Holger then went into a basic explanation of the TDG, which took about a half hour. There was a question and answer period. Most of the questions were about things our TDG group had discussed before, and Holger was good with the answers.
But one fellow tried to challenge Holger: “What is the TDG’s position on global warming?”
Holger responded, “I think it’s important to understand that the TDG of today is not about taking sides on current social and political issues. Rather it’s about a new process for finding solutions in the future. We’re building and learning about new ways of governing. As the TDG matures, it’ll become more capable of addressing current issues, such as global warming.”
The man was not satisfied and left the Oxbow Community Center.
Holger concluded the meeting: “I think it’s time to close the formal part of our evening. Feel free to chat with me, Len, or Stacey. If you’re interested in being a part of this social movement, please read Section 1 and 2 of our constitution. If those membership requirements are acceptable to you, please join us to develop this new system of democracy. It will be built by ordinary Americans just like you.”
My friend Ed came up to me: “Shirley and I decided to forego our usual donation to the Democratic Party this year and use those funds to buy meeting space to start our TDG. Last week we rented a community hall and did a maildrop. I gave a little presentation. While I don’t think I did as good a job as Holger, but I did manage to get 15 people to sign up. We’re going to do one or two more meetings before we start our constitution.”
“Go for it,” I responded.
Ed asked, “Would you be interested in coming to our first constitution meeting?”
I was honored, but also reserved: “I will put in your request at our next executive committee meeting.”
Week 17: Friday
A few emails were passed between the four committee executive members. We were quite pleased with the meeting. Six more people signed on as members. Another 10 got some good exposure. And hopefully that flyer helped build up the TDG profile in Oxbow. It’s hard to know what will convince someone to pay more attention later.
Because Rich’s attendance was going to be sporadic, we decided to move future executive committee meetings to my place.
Week 18: Tuesday
All four of us were at the next executive committee meeting. We reviewed the Oxbow meeting and were happy with the results.
Receipts were handed in. Expenses were $255, and checks were written to cover them. That left about $745 in the account.
Holger said, “I guess we’d better start asking for some donations if we want to hold similar meetings on a consistent basis.”
And we decided to hold another public meeting. This time in Senlac. We would do a mail drop in Senlac and Loon Lake.
Our TDG business ended earlier than usual, so we had time for a little socializing.
Rich was happy with his new job. The pay was better; the responsibilities were within his capacity. But the daily commute was eating up the increase in pay.
I have been going on one or two fire calls a week. I’ve been submitting a few resumes around town. My family bank balance is still OK, so I can afford to be fussy in my next job. I have had a few interviews, but they never seem to go well.
I knew Stacey is a cook at a local restaurant. What I didn’t know is that she has a bachelor’s degree in sociology. She is staying with her parents, trying to pay down student loans. She is undecided whether to take cooking more seriously as a life-long trade or get her master’s degree which gives her a greater chance of being employed in her field.
Stacey mentioned, “And my workplace has been good to me about scheduling free evenings for meetings for my two non-profits: the Northwest Riverbend TDG and the Battenor Ecological Society.”
My heart pounded blood through my ears! The Battenor Ecological Society! This was the group that — year-after-year — tried to shut down all ATV activity into the Battenor Wilderness Area. And Camp Battenor was their focal point. Every year, we had to send a few of our executive committee members to a public hearing to defend ourselves. Every year without fail!
“Why do you guys want to shut us down?” I was almost yelling at Stacey. Rich and Holger became very attentive.
“Because of all the garbage left behind by ATVers,” she said.
“Hey,” I responded, “not all ATVers are irresponsible. We at Camp Battenor have gone to great measures to pick up after ourselves.”
“Maybe so,” said Stacey, “But your presence encourages the irresponsible ATVers to be in the Wilderness Area. If you guys weren’t there enjoying yourselves, the other guys wouldn’t be there either.”
“How do you know?” I challenged her. “Do you know how many bad ATVers we’ve helped the game wardens nab.”
“If you weren’t there, they wouldn’t be there either,” was the response.
At this point Holger stepped in: “You two have been working together for about three months on the TDG, and you’ve just figured out you were opposite ends of this environmental issue?”
“I knew for some time,” said Stacey. “But I can’t recall seeing Len at the public hearings I attended.”
“No, I never went,” I said, “We had more capable members to speak at these meetings. And it seems they’ve done a great job. We always win approval!”
Holger got reflective: “Well, this kind of situation had to come out sooner or later: fellow TDGers were going to be on opposite sides of a particular issue. The question is: how should we handle it?
Stacey and I didn’t say much.
Holger continued, “I think it’s important to realize that our TDG is not at a stage where it can deliver a verdict of any kind on social issues. We may be years from having those abilities.”
Rich added, “As you know, I used to be a strong Republican. I believed in the values of keeping taxes and government services low and managing our public debt responsibly. And I still do. But I now see the Republicans weren’t all that great at delivering on their promises. I think the TDG is going to do a better job of managing government, but this TDG isn’t ready to judge your dispute.”
Holger took up the conversation: “So how are you two going to handle this issue?”
Stacey replied, “I knew of Len’s involvement in Camp Battenor a couple of months ago. I had some struggles working alongside him. But I also saw the good in him and his commitment to the TDG. So I was and am willing to put all this aside and trust that a future TDG will find a better resolution to ATVs in the Battenor Wilderness Area.”
What could I say after that? “Let’s not make this an issue within our TDG, OK?”
“OK,” was Stacey’s response.
Rich had a thought: “Have either of your two organizations ever talked face-to-face?”
Stacey and I shook our heads.
Rich kept on: “Maybe there might be something to be discovered with such a meeting.”
Stacey and I looked at each other. She said, “If we’re able to get our two groups together, would it be possible for Holger to chair the meeting?”
Holger agreed.
Week 24: Tuesday
We had our next public TDG meeting at the Senlac Hall. All our TDG members got a notice in their mail. The residents of Senlac and Loon Lake got a flyer in their mailbox. About 45 people came.
I helped Stacey at the membership table. It was strange working alongside an arch enemy.
Holger started the night with a short talk on the limitations of western democracy — and how the political parties cannot reform themselves in the way we would like them to.
Thelma then went into the importance of voting for good character and capacity for governance. She was not a great speaker. She seemed nervous and stumbled over words a lot. But she got the right message out, and maybe that was OK.
Stacey was a better speaker. She went a bit into the tiered nature of the TDG. She gave a possible structure for Riverbend’s municipal governance. But she was very clear that her structure may not be the exact structure we will eventually come to. There is going to be a lot of work and many meetings with many TDGers before this structure is finalized.
Then we had a half-hour Q & A session. One of the better questions was: “How will the TDG take over responsibility for governance?”
Holger responded, “Not for several more years. We still have lots more work to do. And the TDG would need to win the hearts and minds of a substantial majority of citizens in Riverbend to earn that right.”
As agreed at our executive meeting, I was the “closer” of the public meeting. At 9:00, I stood up to thank everyone for coming. I pointed to our membership table and said that if people were interested in becoming members to please read Section 1 and 2 of our constitution first. Ten more people signed up later. I also asked for donations, and we got $75.
Week 25: Tuesday
Stacey and I managed to convince our two groups to get together for a face-to-face meeting. Part of the deal was that only four members from each group would attend the meeting plus Holger as the chair.
Holger opened the meeting with how he met Stacey and me through the TDG. He mentioned our conflict in the TDG and our decision to set up a face-to-face meeting in order to bring out a new understanding of our two groups.
Holger chaired the meeting very capably. Stacey and I stayed out of the discussion, letting other members speak for our groups. These members laid out their points very civilly and respectfully.
One point the Ecological Society made was that the streams were being widened at ATV crossings. These crossings were eroding the soil and were turning the streams into ponds. I hated to admit it, but they were right — and we were ignoring the problem.
And we made the point that we are influencing other ATVers out there. There is less trash in the woods than there was 10 years ago. And we were instrumental in the rescue of three hikers who got lost several years ago.
It would be nice to say that there was a meeting of the minds into one logical decision that both sides were happy with. That did not happen.
Week 25: Wednesday
Ed gave me a phone call: “Len, our TDG is ready for you.”
“So, tell me what’s been happening.”
“Well, we took your group’s example in Oxbow: Using community centers and maildrops. We have had three meetings and our membership has reached 41.”
“I’d stop finding new members at this point. I think it’s important that this first constitution is prepared without much controversy. At this point, your group isn’t guided by any rules. Keep your membership list intact for the eventual ratification.”
“OK. Where do you think we should hold this meeting?”
“Continue with a bigger venue. If only a handful of people show up, the next one can be in your living room….So what do you want me to do?”
Ed responded, “Could you bring copies of your TDG’s constitution and discuss the various sections? That should prepare us for our deliberations.”
“OK, tell me when and where.”
Week 26: Tuesday
Rich was at our TDG executive meeting again. We talked about the Camp Battenor / Battenor Ecological Society meeting.
Rich said, “See, the TDG got two opposing groups together and they spoke nicely with each other. The TDG is already having an influence outside of itself. This is going to happen more often.”
We talked about my upcoming meeting with the TDG group in Northeast Riverbend. I got assurances that I would do a fine job helping them out. I had never done anything like that.
They were surprised that Ed’s group already has more members than ours.
Holger donated $2500 to our TDG.
We decided to continue to hold meetings every two months at a new location in our district. Based on the success of the last meeting, we would continue to use Holger, Thelma, and Stacey as our speakers.
We also discussed the next election. Even though we held our last election only four months ago, our constitution specifies our annual general meeting is to be held in April — and April is coming up.
Rich said, “We can work that election in with one of our public meetings. We just need to make sure only members get ballots.”
Week 27: Thursday
I entered the meeting room of the Ramada Inn in Northeast Riverbend.
Ed was waiting for me: “Thanks for coming Len. I see you’ve brought some copies of your constitution.”
“Hi Ed. Will 20 be enough?”
“Maybe.”
The meeting was supposed to start in 20 minutes, and there were already six people in chairs. I introduced myself to them and handed them a copy of our constitution.
A few more people started coming in. I noticed that this crowd was much more diverse than our group. I could hear some Spanish in conversation. There were a few African Americans, and a couple of Muslim women. Something in Ed’s promotional material was drawing out these people. At the start of the meeting, 17 people were in attendance.
Ed opened the meeting and introduced me to the audience.
I started with a short talk: “About six months ago, a fellow by the name of Rich Ridell in Northwest Riverbend read a book called ‘Tiered Democratic Governance.’ He got a few of his neighbors together and we discussed this idea and we decided to move it forward. Our first step was to write a constitution for our part of Riverbend. Then we elected an executive committee and have been setting up public meetings to spread the word.
“Three months ago, I told Ed about what we were doing. And now, you are all here — because Rich read a book.”
That little joke did not go so well. Slightly embarrassed, I continued: “I’m not here to give you a constitution. Rather you need to go through this process yourself so you can learn this new way of governance. Writing your own constitution is great practice. Sort of like basketball players in junior high school eventually becoming NBA players.”
“What I have here is a copy of the constitution we in the Northwest have developed. Your TDG can use it as an example. You can leave any clauses you like in place; you can change clauses; you can delete clauses; and you can add clauses. This document is only a guide for you.”
I went through the sections one-by-one, giving my recollection of our history with each of the clauses. There were some good questions as I moved along. I could see some people were engaged with my presentation; some were not. I just moved forward until I was done with Section 9.
Ed asked me, “Are there any tips you can give us to help us write this document?”
I had to think for a moment: “First, assign someone as a writer. That person will put your verbal deliberations on paper as best he or she remembers. The writer can send a draft by email between meetings. If the writer has made any mistakes, they can be fixed. And once things are written down, you can look at them in a different way. Expect some rewriting.
“Second, we had a good chairperson. Rather than go through a whole bunch of Robert’s Rules for each clause, the chairman simplified things when he sensed the group had reached consensus on a certain clause. He used the phrase ‘If there is no objection’ a lot to move the meeting forward.
“I belong to another volunteer group, and I don’t enjoy it when discussions get into exact words to use in motions. I think the writer and chairman kept a lot of the boring stuff out of our constitutional meetings. It wasn’t so bad. I almost enjoyed it!” I got a few laughs.
I wished the group good luck for their TDG constitution. I reminded them that they are building a foundation for our future form of governance — and their work will have an impact decades from now.
Week 28: Monday
Our family bank account was dwindling, and I was starting to think about getting any kind of job. Then a good opportunity came up. Last week, I had an interview with Uspe Trucking Company. They were looking for a shipping and receiving person, someone who would co-ordinate and prepare loads as they came in and out of Riverbend. This employee would process local orders and place calls to customers to pick up their shipments. I didn’t think the interview went well, but I got a call to come back today.
This time, I was met by three management people. Ralph was the fellow who had interviewed me last week. Joining his side of the table were Larry and Lynden. For some reason, I was more at ease.
“Len,” said Ralph, “We were wondering about your experience at operating equipment.”
Running a small welder at Zvolen was not really operating equipment, so I had to think. “Well” I said, “I’ve been on the fire department for 16 years. I’ve had lots of experience operating pumps and hydraulics. And I’m licenced to drive our smaller trucks.”
Then I remembered: “I spent two years in Oklahoma working on an oil well service rig. There we moved a lot of iron around to make things happen. I also drove the smaller trucks. That’s where I got my license.”
Ralph smiled, “OK, you are probably trainable for small equipment. Would you be willing to take a two-day forklift training course in Joosemin?”
I said, “No problem.”
“Here are your wages and working hours.” Ralph passed me a piece of paper. I took a long look at it. I could see that this job was not going to pay as well as Zvolen. I didn’t like the idea of one weekend a month being on call. But overall, the conditions were not that bad. I would be in the back dock, kind of doing things my own way at a nice pace. Zvolen had me on a production quota.
Larry had something else to say: “We know about your fire department obligations.”
I was scared they were going to ask me to reduce my availability for calls. But if that was what it took to get a job, I’d sacrifice the fire department.
Larry continued, “A few years back, one of our drivers was in a bad accident. Your volunteer fire department pulled him out of his damaged truck. He’s back driving for us.”
I couldn’t recall the accident, but likely it was handled by another crew.
“We want to give something back to the Riverbend community. It’s our understanding that the Riverbend Fire Department operates on a shift rotation,” said Larry.
This sounded interesting.
Larry continued, “Mondays and Tuesdays are usually a little slow around here. We would like you to be on call for those two days of the week. If you are called, you can leave work. One of us will handle whatever work needs to be done on the dock. And we’ll still pay your full wages.”
Ralph hinted, “And it would be nice to get some official recognition from the Riverbend Fire Department.”
“I’m sure Chief Verikitis can work something out,” I said. Chief has done this before.
I think I’m going to like working for these guys.
Week 32: Tuesday
About five months ago, we elected our first executive committee. But our constitution requires elections in April. It is now April, and we needed to get in line with our constitution. So we had a new election for the executive committee.
We made arrangements to hold the meeting at the Oxbow Community Center. At this point, we had 66 members, nearly all of them coming from our public meetings. All members got their notice by mail. Twenty-three showed up to vote.
Rich was not there. He was maybe attending one of three TDG meetings these days.
I was more comfortable casting multiple votes this time. And casting four votes for four executive members made more sense than casting two votes.
Stacey, Jackie, and Aiden went to count the votes. Twenty minutes later, they came out with this result:
Holger: 23
Stacey: 17
Len: 15
Thelma: 14
Rich: 11
Aiden: 4
Betty: 3
Jackie: 1
No votes cast: 4 (Some people did not cast a full four votes).
I felt sorry for Rich. He had put so much heart and soul into this TDG.
When we went home after the meeting, I saw Rich’s car parked outside his house. He was home from work. I thought I should break the news to him.
“I’m not too surprised at that. I haven’t been around much lately. Those new members don’t know much about me.”
I tried to console him, “But you were the guy to get this all started. You should’ve been elected for your past contribution.”
He didn’t need any consoling: “From what I’ve read in Dave’s book, people are going to move in and out of the TDG as elections are held. No one should be too possessive of their TDG position. If Thelma replaced me, I’m all for it. She’s a great person.”
“And besides,” he added, “the job in Joosemin is going well. I think I need to live there until I retire. This commute is killing me. But I want to be retired in this house. So Emily and I are looking for a rental house in Joosemin, and we’ll rent this place out. Emily should have no trouble finding another job there. When I’m done working, we’re moving back home.”
“Let me know when you need moving help,” I said.
Somehow, I think Rich has a deeper understanding of how this TDG is supposed to work, even better than Holger. We were already missing his insights. But his short time with the TDG has made a mark on our TDG American history. I hope future historians will recognize that.
