Proposed Changes to Sonoma County ACEs Connection Working Guidelines

Holly asked me to review the SCAC Working Guidelines we developed at the retreat and prepare a document for approval at the October meeting. I invite all members to send me any comments or suggestions regarding the current document. For the purposes of this vote, I am limiting proposed changes to only those issues where there is a discrepancy, disagreement or lack of clarity concerning an existing guideline. Any brand new guidelines should be proposed and adopted later.

The current version of the Guidelines is attached. You can leave comments below.

I have identified five major issues with the current guidelines. If you feel strongly for or against any of these issues, please send me a brief statement arguing your position. I would like to include “Pro and Con” opinions where possible to help members understand and vote on these issues.

1. Article IV, Elected Leaders  ̶  There is a disparity in the number of proposed leaders. At the planning retreat, one group proposed that the elected leaders include a Medical Director (or Consulting Field Expert) and one group did not. Both groups proposed a leadership of Chair, Vice-Chair, Administrative Officer (Secretary) and Treasurer, so there is no disagreement about those positions. This fifth position however, is unusual so the need for a Medical Director/Expert position should be explained. The issue of whether the elected leadership should also include a Medical Director or a Consulting Field Expert needs to be voted upon separately.
2. Article II, Mission, Vision & Values Statement  ̶  The vision was adopted at the August meeting, but there was considerable dissatisfaction with the final choice even at the meeting. Subsequently, other vision statements have been proposed. Since the full document was not adopted, this is as good a time as any to revisit the matter of the preferred vision statement.
3. Article III, Membership  ̶  The Organizational Membership category is unclear in places. The Guidelines state “one-three representatives from each organization may vote on coalition affairs and elections. “ Presumably this means “up to three representatives may vote.” It would be helpful to require that the organization designate which members are to be the “active” members, so that it is clear who is eligible to vote, chair a committee, serve as elected leader, etc. This is important because if an organizational membership covers more than three members, the additional members are presumably counted as “supporting members” not eligible to vote or serve in leadership roles. Finally, it should also be stated that persons who are members of an organization can apply as an individual member if they wish to have the full rights of an “active” SCAC member.
4. Article VI, Committees  ̶  A committee structure was proposed and adopted at the November 2015 meeting. It would make sense to include these committees in the proposed guidelines, which currently only reference the Steering Committee and Master Trainer Program Committee.
5. Article VII, Change of Working Guidelines  ̶  This article is numbered incorrectly. More importantly, it is the usual practice to limit changes in the group’s overall guidelines to changes that meet a minimum level of perceived need and organizational support. A common practice is to require that any proposed change to the guidelines be recommended for consideration by at least one of the standing committees. Adding this language sets a reasonable bar for proposed changes to what are essentially our bylaws.

I hope to have clarifying material on all these issues available for members to review prior to the October meeting.