COL Reports 1 to 3 - by PDG Douglas W. Vincent

Today was an exhausting day with lots of discussion and at times frustration.  It is amazing how members from various parts of the world can interpret phrases and words or try to wordsmith things to death.  And this is further complicated by the fact that some words have a slightly different meaning in other languages.

Today we dealt with only 38 of the over 200 resolutions submitted, which will give you an idea of how slow things can sometimes proceed.   Some of us fear that more serious resolutions coming later, may not get the attention and deliberation deserved if we start to run out of time.  If you want to follow the progress and voting detail you can see daily reports here.

One thing that really helps to move the process along is the electronic voting being used.  We each have a wireless hand control which transmits our vote and displays a result in 15 seconds. You may be interested in knowing that the vendor of this service comes from Toronto.

Of particular interest was resolution 10-02 which proposed having Spouse's Committees in clubs to embrace them and the family of Rotary concept. There were a variety of amendments suggested, including use of the term partner, which was found to apply to animals in one language and found to be masculine in nature in another culture.

In addition, surviving partners and the term widows were proposed amendments which eventually fell by the wayside.  Others felt this would be a way for some clubs to delay making females regular members by parking them in such a committee.  In the end, the resolution failed.

Another interesting decision was the passing of resolution 10-07 to make eClubs an ongoing and regular club.  It passed with 431 in favor and 76 against. Congratulations to those of you in eClubs!

There was a long and drawn out debate over an hour long, with various amendments proposed such as limiting the total number of eClubs to 50. But that amendment was defeated.

The suggestion of restricting one eClub per district also caused much deliberation, with one amendment taking that out. However it did not carry forward due to a technicality. After much discussion it was voted to allow 2 eClubs per district.

From the comments it was apparent that several members do not understand the concept of eClubs and how they work. Some speaking against, questioned how eClubs can carry out community service projects and experience fellowship when spread over such a great distance.

I spoke in support of this resolution, and the original proposer representing D2070 did an excellent job of providing facts and figures to explain the positive impact that eClubs have had and will continue to have in the future.  To see a rotary.org article on the eClubs decision, click here.

Another resolution suggested new chartered clubs should remain an interim club for two years prior to receiving their regular club charter.  There is some feeling that new clubs wishing to charter may induct friends or relatives into the club to reach the qualifying number of members.  Then in the following months, membership drops below an acceptable level and the situation is not dealt with.  It was felt that for a club to earn regular status, it would have to maintain or grow the membership during a two year mentoring period.  

It had a focus on mentoring and many thought this was a good idea which is needed, but despite many favourable comments the resistance to change won out resulting in defeat of the resolution.  I anticipate this issue will return again for future consideration.

I should mention that while a resolution may be passed, it is not binding.  Generally it is a request by the COL for the RI Directors to consider the issue but there is no requirement for them to move forward if they feel it is not beneficial to Rotary overall.  In the case of enactments, they are binding changes to the RI Bylaws or Constitution.

Time for some homework and review on tomorrow's proposals.

Further to my prior email covering the Rotary Peace Community resolution, we had another group of interesting resolutions today that created a lot of debate and discussion.  Like yesterday, sometimes members try to wordsmith more than is necessary which is complicated by the different languages and cultures involved.  And to quote some comments made "We are trying to micro manage the clubs too much."

Today we got to the 73rd resolution out of 219, so there is still a lot of work to do and we have to start earlier tomorrow morning.  As a reminder, if you wish to follow the progress and voting detail you can see daily reports here.

There was further discussion today on resolution 10-23, which was passed yesterday adding a 65 year age requirement to the "rule of 85" attendance exemption guidelines.  There was mixed feeling on whether or not a person with this status should be able to hold office in a club if they are not regular attendees. 

It seems that some members who qualify for this exemption think they have some special senior level status, but with the elimination of the Senior Active membership category a few years ago, there is no special status attached to this.  Today a question was asked and the constitution committee offered the interpretation that anyone currently in this category under 65 years old should have their situation revisited by the club to determine if they qualified for the revised exemption rule, which will take effect July 1st. 

There is no 'grandfathering clause' in the resolution that was passed and some feel there should be leeway for clubs to interpret it as they see fit in their circumstances.  Senior Rotarians under the "rule of 85" have no special status other than exemption from attendance requirements.

Resolution 10-43 suggesting  a "Friends of Rotary" membership caused a great deal of discussion, with many clinging to the past and belief we should not water down membership in this way.  Others felt that we need to embrace trying new ideas to attract members.  There has been some movement in thinking on this concept, however the adoption failed with 232 for and 277 against.

A similar debate took place on resolution 10-46 which proposed having "Associate Members" at discounted dues.  Those speaking in favour felt it may attract potential members who were not sure of the commitment or had financial concerns.  The thinking was that after getting them involved, they might catch the spirit of service and become regular members within two years.

Others argued that this may become complicated and develop into a two tiered system of membership which is not desired.  It was also questioned if people would be comfortable joining with no rights like a regular member has.  There did not seem to be any facts to indicate this concept has been successful in strengthening clubs and the motion failed.

Corporate Membership was debated under resolution 10-45 and there was one example given where a pilot club brought in 15 members in this category.  There seemed to be some conversion to regular membership once the candidates got involved and experienced club service.

Many others felt that Rotary is a 'personal commitment' and should therefore be a personal membership.  They also felt that a corporate structure would lack continuity with sporadic attendance by up to four different individuals.  In the end, the motion was defeated.

Overall some members expressed concern regarding the conservative thinking that seemed to influence voting on the above membership related proposals.   "Why do we find reasons to block new ideas to embrace new member recruiting?" was a question one frustrated representative asked at the end of this section.

In any event, with the result of today's decisions, those clubs who may have any 'special' membership categories are contravening the RI bylaws or constitution and therefore should revisit the wisdom of continuing that activity in the future.

There is concern that new clubs getting close to chartering may sign up friends or relatives as members to qualify for the numbers required.  After a few months, there is a drop in membership with the result that clubs do poorly, may have as low as 10-12 members and Districts do not act to rectify this situation. 

The suggestion was that new chartering clubs would have an interim status for two years, during which time they would receive better mentoring.  Then if they maintained or grew membership, at the end of two years the regular charter would be provided.  It seemed like a reasonable idea but the lack of will for such change resulted in defeat of the resolution.

Another resolution 10-50 suggested a "Satellite Club Membership" where provisional club members would become members of the sponsoring club until such time as the new club qualified for their charter.  At times the delay in chartering new clubs lets prospects loose interest or fall by the wayside and by getting them involved in a club right away, retention is enhanced. 

In the event the new club is not chartered, these prospects may often stay in the sponsoring club.  Apparently this has worked well in remote areas where it takes longer to form new clubs and the resolution was adopted.

Resolution 10-127 was very controversial with regard to increasing dues in future years.  Many did not object to the suggestion of increases proposed by the Board, but took exception to giving them the suggested option of raising dues with a maximum annual 2% increase after 2014. 

Due to a mix up on amendments and the misunderstanding of an amendment proposer, at one point we risked eliminating dues all together. But after many speakers and a series of adjusting amendments things worked out well.  But it was a frustrating time for the chair and many others.

The option to give our Board the power to raise dues up to 2% per year if needed was defeated as many COL members saw this as giving away COL power over dues charged.  When speaking against, one member commented, "I am a urologist and in my terms, getting this passed would be like a wet dream to any Board."

Another question raised was why we needed any dues increase, given the amount we have in our emergency reserve fund.  Apparently it currently sits at about 150% of our average annual expenses, with the guidelines suggesting it should be at least 85%.  Directors felt they needed to retain these funds in the event of another financial challenge like we've recently had.

In the end an amended lower amount of $1 was passed rather than the original $1.50.  This steps up annually until 2014 when it will be reviewed again by the next COL.

A resolution to assess per capita dues based on the socioeconomic differences between regions or countries was proposed.  It was with the thought that in poorer areas there are several quality prospects for Rotary membership but due to finances and disposable income, they could not afford to join.  It was seen as too difficult to administer and hard to define what data might be used and how consistent or reliable it would be.  So it failed to pass.

Next was a proposal to alter the months for holding PETS and District Assembly.  But geographic regions and cultures complicated the decision, with India saying the months suggested were too hot and Canadians saying other months risked bad weather for travelling.  A compromise was reached to add months, without removing any, which gives districts more flexibility.

A huge amount of time was spent debating the suggestion that the tradition of sending RI President's Representatives to District Conferences should be reviewed.  Some felt the money could be better spent, given the low % of Rotarians attending in many districts and shorter one day events some have. But overall, many felt that having the global and RI outlook at a conference was worthwhile.

Several felt that their conferences have been better, due to the RI President's Representative attending.  It also helps to cross pollinate information between Rotarians/Clubs and Rotary International.  In the end the resolution was defeated but from the discussions, RI Directors in the room have the message that some consideration for modification of this practice is desired.  

Well, that's a recap of some interesting discussions that took place today.  Obviously there were a lot of other issues debated but not anything significant to our District. 

I want to remind everyone that other than enactments, the resolutions are not binding.  They are merely a request by the assembly for the Board to investigate and consider making the suggested changes in the future.  In some cases they may need to come back to the next COL with draft policies/procedures for approval of this body.

I hope that this reporting is interesting to you and helpful in increasing your understanding of Rotary's governance at the global level.

Doug V.
D7080 COL Representative