Frank,

 This is a very interesting possibility, that there may be no campaigns for us to work on.  This actually may not be the case.  After the 2004 general election, and at the very beginning of Democracy for America, at that time, Heartland DFA (before we combined with Edgewater) adopted Lali Watt's campaign for village trustee in Wilmette.  The election was in March, we did a fundraiser and flyering in Jan. and Feb. I believe.  Later that summer, we began working on issue ID canvasses in Christine Cegelis' district with Loop DFA (this was called the Blue Basin project).   That was 2005.  Some of us marched in a St. Patrick's day parade with Christine in March 2006. 

 There is no guarantee, however, that we would get involved in these kinds of activities again after the 2008 general.  We may want to adopt your suggestion.  However, three of the last 10 activities would favor those with the most recent participation.  Most likely, there will be 10 activities in the last two months leading up to the 2008 general.  Let's say you could only do 2 of the last 10 activities, but had done one activity a month before that.

 Perhaps, a way to get around this, is to say we count any three campaign activities that happen in the last 12 months in which we HAD a campaign activity.  So, therefore, any month after Nov. 2008 that we do not have a campaign activity, we do not count toward the 12 month period.  This would apply only to activities, not to meeting attendance. 

 See any drawbacks in this way of counting?  This whole business of counting activities was rather complex to start with.  But, after attending the IVI-IPO endorsement sessions today, though everything went well (at least through the two wards I attended), I was reminded of how that process could be manipulated. 

 Michi

The questioon of what happens if someone is blocked out of quite-recent campaign activities is why I wrote that you could also use the past year or teh last ten events  "whichever is less restrictive."

That may not be the best wording. But your examples show very few events within the proper time frame.

We also need the steering committee to note which announced events are campaign-related events. 

We did discuss this issue in the by-laws committee meetings -- my best recollection of how we thought about it was that there would nearly always be campaigns for us to work on.  Part of our definition of who we are as a group is about working on campaigns.  Though its hard to see so far in the future as 2008, I can easily see us starting to work on Congressional campaigns fairly soon after the election; also, who knows but we may get interested in more local campaigns with DFA candidates?  On the other hand,  we chose the fall of odd-numbered years as likely  "down" times when we could have Steering Committee elections without it getting too much in the way of campaign activities.

 I do like Michi's solution, however. 

OK, so let's look at concrete examples to sort out what this all means depending on what happens in the lull period after Nov. 2008.

Current by-laws: voting rights requires participating in three campaign activities in previous calendar year prior to a vote.

Frank's suggestion: participating in three campaign activities among the last 10 or previous year whichever is less restrictive

Michi's suggestion: participating in three campaign activities within the last 12 months for which there was a campaign activity

Situation 1: from Dec. 2008 to Nov. 2009 we have NO campaign activities.

Current by-laws: no one will have satisfied requirements for voting rights at our Dec. 2009 meeting.  Since no one can vote on adopting campaigns, we can have no more campaign activities.  We are in a Catch-22 situation.  We become a political discussion group.  We dissolve.  Or we re-write by-law!

Frank's law: everyone who worked three activities in last ten (most likely being in Oct. and Nov. of 2008) would have voting rights at Dec 2009 mtg and beyond.

Michi's law: everyone who worked three activities from Dec. 2007 to Nov. 2008 would have voting rights at Dec 2009 mtg and beyond

Situation 2: we have sprinkled from Dec. 2008 to Nov. 2009 three activities we deem to be campaign activities. 

Current by-laws: only folks who participated in ALL three would have voting rights at Dec. 2009 mtg.  NO ONE else could vote.

Frank's law:  we drop three activities from the last 10 leading up to 2008 general and add the three in the lull period.  Most folks who worked the last two months of Nov. 2008 general would still have voting rights.

Michi's law:  the three months within which the three activities occur are added to the 12 month counting period and Dec. 2007, Jan. 2008 and Feb. 2008 activities are dropped from count.  Everyone who worked toward Nov. 2008 election most likely would have voting rights.

Situation 3: during post Nov. 2008 lull, we adopt a small local election and we have a period of two months with 10 activities. 

Current by-laws: folks who participated in at least three of those activities would have voting rights.  Folks who did a lot in Nov. 2008 for the general would have none. 

Frank's law: same outcome, folks who did at least three activities on this local campaign would have voting rights, but folks who did a lot for 2008 general would not

Michi's law: the two months for the local election would be added to the 12 month counting period and Dec. 2007 and Jan. 2008 would be dropped. Folks could earn voting rights by working hard on this local campaign, but those who worked toward the Nov. 2008 general would still have voting rights.

Situation 4: a combination of situation 2 and situation 3, an intense two month period of activities and three more activities scattered within 12 month period after Nov 2008. 

Current law: all activities count and only those who work at least three can vote, but not those who worked on 2008 gereral election.

Frank's law:  same outcome.

Michi's law: these five months count toward 12 month period and activities from Dec. 2007 to April 2008 are dropped.  This still leaves most people who worked 2008 general with voting rights.

Last situation 5:  we have one campaign activity per month after Nov. 2008.

Current law:  anyone who works at least three can vote regardless of what they did in 2008.  This seems reasonable since this shows continued and persistent participation in group sponsored activities.

Frank's law:  same outcome.

Michi's law: same outcome.

CONCLUSION:  Our current by-laws work well only as long as we have regular campaign activites throughout a year.  If there are months without activities, if we don't count them toward the 12 month period prior to a vote, more of our members who have worked any of our campaigns will retain voting rights.

Michi

I think it is important to talk about intent of the particular by-law.  We want our voting members to be those that truly support what we are doing.  It was felt that the 3 meeting bar was too low, and that we should raise it.  Money is one way, another is additional time.  We chose the additional time option for a multitude of reasons. 

 We are now asking supporters to attend meetings and volunteer - I think the particular problem is in the use and definition of "campaign-related."  If that is to mean only electoral-campaigns, then we have the issues nicely outlined by you 3 here.  But if "campaign-related" can also be taken to mean an endeavor taken on by our group to move the mission of DFA forward, well then that could include issue-campaigns, education-campaigns, awareness-building-campaigns, etc.  In this case we don't have a problem - except that we always need to be working on something (but given this group, I don't think that is a problem).

If there is a feeling that this is unclear, then I might change "campaign-related activities" to "group-endorsed activities" or something along those lines.