On Robert's Rules: Chapter 4 / Sometimes the Way to Move Forward is to Stop: Tabling, Postponing, or Withdrawing Motions.

Submitted by Richard Harrison

Sometimes during a discussion, it becomes pretty clear that no decision that everyone can live with is going to be made, even if it does get to a vote. There are several things that can be done at that point, and depending on how the meeting got there, the facilitator or a member from the floor can suggest which one to go with.

Remembering that a failed motion can only be revisited under special circumstances (see the section "The Passed is the Past ... Unless"), no one who makes a motion wants to see it defeated if it was presented without all the arguments in its favour made or the arguments against it answered. And no one wants to defeat a motion on incomplete evidence.

So if all a discussion about a motion needs is more time or information before the decision about it is fully informed, that motion can be either Tabled or Postponed at the will of the meeting. These two actions have the same result in the short-term: discussion about the motion stops. In the longer term, they are different.

Tabling a motion sends it off the agenda for an indefinite period of time -- maybe forever. But a tabled motion (Or, in Robert's actual words, "a motion laid on the table"), can be returned to discussion at any time in the meeting in which it was tabled -- again, at the will of the meeting. It's a kind of suspended animation with no fixed return-to-life hour within the meeting. However, the motion must be taken off the table in the next meeting, or it vanishes.

To table a motion, a motion to table needs to be made, seconded, and passed without debate with the simple majority of 50% plus one. There is one side-note here, and Robert’s Rules takes quite a bit of time with it: tabling is meant to help a group organize a discussion; it shouldn’t be used to cut off debate or consideration of a question. In such a case, the facilitator is tasked with calling the motion out of order.

Postponing a motion is putting it into suspended animation with a fixed time for its return. So a motion to postpone has to include a date or time for the discussion to resume -- even if that discussion is only to further postpone the motion to another time in the future. It requires a mover, seconder and, under normal conditions, after a debate on the merits of postponing, a simple majority vote. (In some cases, a motion needs postponing because it has become too large an issue to be discussed in the time allowed. In that case someone might move to postpone the motion and treat it at the next meeting as special motion – something to devote more than half the meeting to. And in that case, the vote required is 2/3.)

Sometimes it's clear that a motion doesn't have the support of the meeting or some argument against it is so persuasive that even the person who made it no longer believes it's right. I think it's possible to argue that that is discussion demonstrating its best properties. In such cases, out of respect for the meeting's time and thought, the maker of the motion might want to withdraw it from discussion. With the consent of the seconder of the motion, the motion is withdrawn, discussion on it ends, and the meeting can move on to other matters.

I've seen all three exit points for a discussion used in meetings, and each of them saves the meeting from discussions that are no longer grounded in the motion itself or could have led to those sorts of debates where everyone, even their winners, loses the goodwill of the meeting or the group.

On Robert’s Rules, Chapter 3: The Philosophy of Robert's Rules

I get asked a lot why I know these rules as well as I do -- or more importantly, why I like and believe in them. The historical answer is that they work to keep discussions on track and on time. They and their variations, adapted for the special needs of organizations such as Parliament, try to ensure that all people get a chance to speak; they work against the tendency of unregulated meetings to become places where the loudest voices carry the day. No set of Rules of Order will create decisions that everyone agrees with, but in my experience so far, Robert's Rules does go a long way to helping a group come to a decision that everyone can live with even if it’s one they didn't support.

These outcomes are the result of certain qualities in Robert's Rules that, once you get a feel for them, can make understanding them -- and predicting the decisions that they will guide you to -- easier. I'm not sure that I'm completely aware of what those qualities are, but after practicing Robert’s Rules for over thirty years, here's what I think they are.

One: Robert's Rules are rules in favour of the shyest person in the room. I don't know what kind of a person Major, later General Robert was, but he made it far in the US Army in the late 1800s – soon after the Civil War -- so I'd expect he was pretty clear, forthright, and demanding in his decision making. I expect he expected to be obeyed and for most of his active military life, he was.

It was his church group that gave him pause. Not being organized along military lines, their meetings frustrated him. I like that story, and I like imagining a group of men and women without rank stopping an army officer in his tracks. But I like to think, too, that Robert’s frustration points to something about the nature of his church community: everyone in it was equal before their God. So the question is, how should equals decide on a direction?

Robert was a student of the procedures used in Congress, and that provided him with the answer in a system of discussion that gives everyone their turn and no more than their turn. It appoints a temporary leader (we would say "facilitator", Robert's Rules now uses the word "chair") trusted by the group to make decisions according to the rules but whose power is also checked by the group as a whole (I'll talk about that in my section on "Loopholes and Challenges"), and right from the get-go, the first motion, a seconder is required; so anyone seeking to guide the direction of the group already has one person in it who’ll stand with them in that suggestion.

Two: Robert's Rules recognize that there are two kinds of votes. Again, I'll speak to this in detail later, but Robert realized that some decisions require more of what we would now call "buy-in" than others. In some cases, a simple majority (half those who vote plus one) is enough to assure the group that the decision in question is supported enough to warrant their support and not so impactful that it breaks the group up, or unreasonably binds the hands of those who follow. Things for us like whether we support the Rooftops initiative or what the Housing Charge will be are such decisions. Not that they're not important; clearly they are, and we desire more than just the half of the voters plus one that we need to support the motions that establish these actions, but such motions are limited in scope, and they need to be decided on in an ongoing way that can't be held up by objectors who lack the support of the majority.

But there are matters -- like bylaws and constitutions -- that do have effects on the way things are done that can outlast the participatory lives of the people who make decisions about them. For those decisions, Robert's Rules argues, a simple majority (who may be swayed by the conditions of the moment or opposed by a sizeable minority) aren't enough to cause such a change. For those changes, motions require a 2/3 majority vote, and that extra 1/6 portion of the group represents the best answer we have to the difference between the decisions we as a group have to make for ourselves alone and the ones we have to make for those who will come after us.

Three: Robert's Rules are only rules. They're not laws, and they don't try to be. Admittedly, any group has its moments where the will of the majority, either expressly by vote or by extension through people voted into positions of authority, is imposed on everyone. In democratic institutions, there are corrections in place for such moments, of course, and protections against abuse of power, but both of these systems can take time to work themselves out, and don't usually change the power structures themselves.

But Robert's Rules are constantly in front of us while we are in a meeting. In a sense, they are the procedures for free decision-making, which, to my mind, is decision-making that can explain itself. They do allow for variations on themselves with consent of the meeting -- things like allowing the maker of a motion to answer a question during the discussion, or the raising of "Points of Information" and "Points of Order" that both break the flow of a discussion when they are invoked and reconnect it when they're done.

And they allow us to tailor things to our own needs and best judgment. Even simple things like when we call the question, or move to adjourn, or suspend the rules a bit for an open discussion (one not guided by a motion), or vote by raising our hands. All these are variations on the Rules that the Rules allow to make things fit with the culture of the community that's using them to make decisions and deal with conversations that can be difficult to have. More and more I have become interested in working on a mutually agreeable and ongoing basis -- the way an ecosystem works – rather than in the top-down law-guided way that I see in a lot of institutions. To me, Robert’s Rules is the balance between what we have to do to make a decision and what we need to be free to do to make that decision truly ours.

Messy Yard Notice

Submitted by Bob Bott on behalf of the Grounds Committee

Hello from the Grounds Committee

This is especially for those of you who have not been looking after your yards. If you are physically unable to do so, let us know and we’ll see what we can to help.

Section 11-2 of the Sunnyhill Member Handbook sets out the Grounds Policy that all members are expected to follow regarding yards and entrances. Now that warmer weather is here, it might be a good idea to review this, especially these provisions:

Storage: Acceptable items for outside storage are lawn furniture, flowerpots, barbeques, and in-use motor vehicles and bicycles. The Grounds Committee must approve any permanent outdoor structure or modification such as sheds, dog houses, sand boxes or decks or the storage of boats, trailers or derelict motor vehicles.

Unit Property Standards:

· Grass should be neatly trimmed and bald spots reseeded

· Property should be clear of noxious and unsightly weeds

· Hedges should be trimmed and free of weeds

· Hedges should not overgrow walkways

· Pet feces should be removed promptly

· Spills of oil or similar contaminants should be cleaned from parking pads

· Front and rear areas should be clear of junk and garbage

Enforcement: Friendly persuasion will be the main method of enforcing the above standards. If problems persist, however, the Member will be advised in writing and given a reasonable amount of time to address the issues. As a last resort, a contractor will be hired to do the remediation and the cost will be billed to the Member.

We plan to again bring a dumpster on site this summer so members can dispose of unwanted items, especially those that are not in compliance with the policy. Please help us tidy up the co-op without having to resort to enforcement actions.

Items no longer needed

Submitted by Myrtle Lambert

1. Metal frame, folding ironing board

2. Bag lawn renewal seed

3. Garden pots for plants

On Roberts Rules: Chapter 2

Submitted by Richard Harrison

Navigating the River -- Amendments to Motions in Motion

Once a motion has been made and seconded, it belongs to everyone. We're all involved in deciding whether the group as a whole is in favour of the motion or opposed to it, and the floor is open to anyone to speak for or against it.  The meeting facilitator keeps a speaker's list, and also keeps the discussion on track by making sure that everyone addresses the issue under discussion. According to Robert's Rules, after everyone has spoken, the person who made the motion gets the chance to speak to it last. Then we vote.

There are variations on this pattern, and the facilitators at Co-op meetings have often invited the maker of the motion to speak to an issue as it arises in the middle of a discussion to clarify a point or answer a specific question. This can help clarify the motion as long as this question-and-answer doesn't go too far from the main point, and so most facilitators will not only allow it but help guide the discussion that way if it is needed.

That's the core of the process: motion made, motion seconded, motion discussed, voted on and either passed or not.

But we can also be involved in crafting the motion while we are discussing it. Sometimes considerations of fact or of wording come up in the discussion, and in their light we want to suggest changes to the motion so that its wording better reflects what the motion really means in terms of the actions that will follow from it if it is passed. And so new wording can be suggested for the motion and discussed by the group as an Amendment to the Motion.

In terms of Robert's Rules, an amendment to a motion is actually another motion made while a first motion is under discussion. So, like the motion it is amending, it, too, needs a mover, a seconder, a discussion and a vote. When an amendment is made, we stop discussing the first motion, and move to discussing the amendment. If the amendment is passed, we go back to the first motion and discuss it in its amended form. If the amendment is not passed, the discussion goes back to the first motion as it was at the beginning.

The amendment process makes it a lot easier to let motions benefit from the discussion as it progresses. It allows the group to act as editors of the motion's wording as well as judges of its worth, and it's much easier than defeating motions, and then discussing other motions that are close to them but not exactly the same.

The one area that gets a bit fuzzy in the process is “The Friendly Amendment.” In practice, meetings sometimes try to treat an amendment that the original motion's maker agrees with as "friendly," but almost none of those amendments, even when the original mover likes them, actually are or should be treated that way. An amendment is a change, and almost all changes make a difference.

So if a motion belongs to everyone, which it does,  it shouldn't be changed without everyone's consent. The way that consent is achieved in a meeting is by a motion made, seconded, discussed, and voted on. Even if the original mover objects to an amendment, if the group votes to pass it, then the motion is amended. Normally this doesn't happen. Normally an amendment is designed to refine a motion in keeping with its original purpose, and so normally the amending process doesn't contradict the motion, but we still need to go through the process of voting on amendments so that the actual motion in its entirety belongs to all of us.

Still, "Friendly Amendment" does mean something, and it has an important use. A friendly amendment is one that doesn't change the meaning of the motion but makes a minor correction to its grammar or occasionally word choice so that it says what the mover wants it to.  Things like, "there should be a comma here," or “the word ‘affect’ should be ‘effect’ in the original wording,” are friendly amendments. Usually the facilitator rules on such amendments, and usually the original mover is fine with them.

And as small as such changes might seem, I'm an English professor, and I've seen (as I'm sure anyone dealing with contracts, or law, or advertising -- any business that involves getting the wording right will tell you they've seen too), I've seen arguments over commas go a full half hour or more. The friendly amendment spares us all that and helps us get on with the job, something any friend would do.

On Roberts Rules: Chapter 1

Submitted by Richard Harrison (reprint from February 2017)

Opening Move

Thank you for your reception of my short talk on Robert's Rules at the last General Meeting. I promised that I'd try to condense the big book of rules that Robert drew up over a hundred years ago and that has been updated every few years ever since by the Society that bears his name and shares all our interest in having well-run meetings where decisions are made in as democratic a form as possible. 

So I'm going to attempt to fulfill what many might say is a foolhardy promise: to capture not just the rules, but the practice of the rules in 7 what I called "cards" at the time. 

I do want to add that I feel that our meetings have been very productive and satisfying in many ways not just because we use Robert's Rules, but that the way our community works to solve problems through discussion and participation is the driving force behind those rules. In many ways the Rules fit us and we them because the Rules put into words the spirit in which we meet. 

As I mentioned in the meeting General Robert wrote up the first Rules in 1876. But they were not designed for the army. The army already had enough top-down rules, and a chain of command that gave everyone in it a place. He wrote the Rules for his Church Society, which frustrated him immensely since their meetings often broke down into long contentious discussions with no decision. 

So the question Robert's Rules is designed to answer is this: How do you get the efficiency he was used to in the army (where he was in command) when you are in a meeting where everyone is in command

His answer was that instead of one decision-making person in charge of organizing others around a decision already given to them, he put the decision in charge organizing the people who were making it. 

So the first card in Robert's Rules is the decision to be made. That decision (maybe from the idea of "marching orders") is called the Motion. The motion is the first step in democratic decision-making because it must be spoken out loud in the meeting so everyone knows what it is.

We're used to how these are made -- someone either rises in the meeting to propose a decision to be made, or the decision to be discussed is in the agenda. 

The motion must be precisely worded because it directs the organization to do something. So it has to be something that either the organization or someone representing it can actually do. 

Before the motion can be debated, it needs a seconder. The seconder assures that at least one other person in the meeting agrees that the decision should be discussed. So someone in the meeting needs to say, "I second the motion" so discussion can continue. 

The speaker's job is to regulate the discussion so that everyone who wants to gets a chance to speak to the decision. Notice that all comments need to be directed to the actual motion. The motion itself is the standard for whether a comment is  relevant or not. Speakers wait their turn because they know their turn will eventually come. 

Strictly by the rules (though we do alter this a bit sometimes -- something the Rules also allows), the motion's mover gets to address all the comments that are made for or against it. 

Then the vote. 

Depending on the impact of the decision it suggests making, a motion is either passed if a simple majority of voting members vote for it or if 2/3 of the voting members vote for it. A motion about the normal course of business needs only 50% plus one support. A motion to change the rules in a governing document, for example, requires the 2/3. 

The Emergency Evacuation Planning Group Needs You!

Submitted by Marion Gauzer

Whether you love giving your two cents’ worth, enjoy event planning, like to be out there meeting people, or just want to do your quiet thing on your own, we need you to join the Emergency Evacuation Planning group.   

If you’re interested in helping out, please email Marion at mgauzer@yahoo.ca, or leave a message at 403-243-0132.

CHF Canada e-News

Submitted by Jackie Durrie

Read the latest newsletter from The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada

In this edition:

Take 60 seconds to tell your MP it’s time to secure the future of our co-ops

Housing co-ops mourn Mark Paul: developer, educator, leader

Housing co-ops benefit from more than $100 million in refinancing since 2013

Don’t miss the Spring Member Forum in your region

Nominations Closed: online voting starts April 15

Early bird deadline tomorrow for Manitoba Spring Education Event

Early bird deadline approaching for Nova Scotia Spring Education Event

Emergency Evacuation Survey Results

Submitted by Marion Gauzer on behalf of the Emergency Evacuation Planning group

In order to understand the needs, concerns and insights of co-op members, as well as the facts surrounding the 2013 flood, the Emergency Evacuation Planning group created a survey to help in planning for future emergency evacuations.  We received 15 completed surveys.  Of all the members who responded, all 15 were living at the co-op during the flood of 2013.  Here are some of the most notable findings:

1. Eighty percent of respondents were home at the time they received notice of the evacuation.

2. About 13 percent had more than two hours notice to evacuate; 47 percent had between one and two hours; 40 percent had less than half an hour.

3. Forty percent of respondents received notification through a co-op member or news media (20 percent each); most of the rest of members who responded received notice through a family member or friend, social media, emergency personnel (about 13.5 percent each); one member received notice through word of mouth.

4. Eighty percent of respondents evacuated by car, 13.5 by walking, and one respondent was out of town.

5. Regarding evacuation assistance, respondents were able to select more than one response:

   1. Eighty-seven percent of respondents received assistance from a family member; 53 percent from a friend; 47 percent from a co-op member and/or emergency personnel; other assistance came from friends, co-workers, other neighbours.

   2. Three members did not have any assistance while evacuating.

6. We had 10 responses to a question asking what other kinds of assistance would have helped members evacuate:

   1. The most common response was that more time or notice would have helped.  

   2. Other kinds of assistance that might have helped included:

      1. more information about the severity of the flood,

      2. a vehicle or party bus,

      3. a list of items to bring,

      4. help finding a place to stay, and

      5. knowing what to pack/plan for.

   3. One respondent preferred not to bother others.

   4. One respondent didn’t need any more help.

7. Transportation challenges respondents experienced included:

   1. Road closures

   2. Slow moving traffic

   3. Feeling panicked while stuck in traffic and worrying

   4. No vehicle—walking out with dog that had just had surgery

   5. Respondents also mentioned a van was available from a church to U of C housing; some felt lucky to have a vehicle that would fit all their family and pets.

   6. One respondent thought that planned departure times would have alleviated anxiety and provided extra time to prepare.

8. Almost 80 percent had a place to go to at the time of evacuation, the rest of respondents did not.

9. Most respondents (80 percent) took any pets with them to where they were staying, with the rest leaving pets with family members, dropping them at a City of Calgary Animal Services facility or leaving their pets in their units.

10. Respondents received information/updates about the co-op and communicated with other members during the evacuation:

    1. by phone, Facebook and/or email (64 percent),

    2. other social media (17 percent), and

    3. other (0.00 percent)

11. These are some of the things that worked well for respondents:

    1. Helpful relatives

    2. Staying calm

    3. Previous emergency response training

    4. Obeying the order to evacuate

    5. Being at home at the time the evacuation order was given

    6. Having important information available

    7. Sunnyside neighbours and Calgarians who helped

    8. Having a place to stay that would allow respondents to bring pets

    9. Having more than one place to stay to accommodate all family members

    10. Being able to stay in touch with other evacuated members to touch base and start planning for return to co-op home

    11. Supportive friends

    12. U of C housing (great!)

    13. Being able to find a place to stay and a place for pets

12. These are some of the things respondents thought would have worked better:

    1. More notice, longer lead time

    2. More preparation on the part of the co-op and members

    3. More time to move belongings from basement to upper floors

    4. Better access to the co-op’s Facebook page

    5. Having an email/phone tree with all members’ contact information to find out if all members were safe and accounted for and had transportation and a place to go to

    6. Earlier notification from the city

    7. Transportation available for everyone

    8. Better co-op communication

13. One hundred percent of respondents would be willing to supply the office with emergency contact information and 92 percent would be willing to supply the board with the same.

We wish to thank all the co-op residents who took the time to complete this survey and offer their feedback.

Upcoming Events for May

Early May -- Income and residency forms due -- Financial Committee

Early May -- Deliver new Housing Charge notices -- Financial Committee

Early May -- Walk around with Curbside -- Grounds Committee 

First Monday -- Grounds Committee Meeting -- Grounds Committee

Second Week of month -- Board Meeting -- Board of Directors

Third Wednesday -- Buildings Committee Meeting -- Buildings Committee

Saint Patrick’s Day 2017

Submitted by Candace Weir

The Coop’s annual celebration of Saint Patrick’s Day at the Curling Club is one of the most enjoyable ways of celebrating our community.  

Around 50 coop members of all ages came together on Wednesday, March 16th to share snacks, some beer (or other drinks) and lots of conversation. The bigger kids formed their own huddle on the couches, playing board games and talking or watching the curling. It was a very relaxed evening.  

Many thanks to Marzcena for organizing the venue and the refreshments.

Update on Pumping Station #2

Submitted by Candace Weir

Shake, rattle and roll, it must be 7 am.  

The drilling crew is probably on it's last week on the worksite.  They have drilled 39 pylons: 6 of which are huge, 19 of which will support the building.  Each pylon has taken about 6 cubic feet of concrete.  Impressive!

This was the view from my balcony earlier this week.  The drill behind the remains of last summers basil crop was about 5 feet from the edge of the unit.  The next photo gives a better view of the business end of the drill.  They drill for a bit, withdraw the bit, then knock and spin off the detritus and get back at it.  Each hole takes several tries to complete.

The machine delivering the concrete in the holes drilled resembles the back leg of a huge grasshopper.  

I didn't get pictures of the crew negotiating the huge steel beams into the cement.  One wrong move and there would have been no 743.  I really appreciate just how good everyone is at their job.

Phase 2 should be fun.  

C-Train Tunnel Testing

Submitted by Eric Moschopedis

The star indicates where the drilling was happening.

Did anybody see this giant truck parked in the middle of the Bow River or along the pathway last week? I was so curious as to what was happening that I tracked down one of the workers associated with it. Turns out they were gathering core samples from below the river and all the way to the bedrock, to see if it would be a suitable place for a tunnel for the proposed C-Train line. The gentleman I spoke to told me how strict The City was with the drilling. One day they needed to halt all operations because the drilling was kicking up too much silt and polluting the river. If you see the truck east of Centre Street Bridge, The City isn't drilling for the C-Train, but a proposed new sewer line.

Conversation Café Topic: Volunteering

Submitted by Jane Roberts

from: clipartfox.com/

At the Conversation Cafe held on January 15, 2017, there were several topics covered, and this topic is volunteering. Many ideas were brought forward for consideration:

• creating a "volunteer deposit" : members could pay money into a fund, and be refunded for volunteer work; another option was only requiring a deposit from non-volunteers
• because we are not in a rental situation, members who do not attend χ number of meetings must attend an education event
• a letter sent out to non-volunteers
• members should RSVP to meetings? Why aren't members attending meetings or sitting on a committee? (survey)
• member Involvement follow-up twice a year? Or ask a volunteer to do this?
• send out a form with the annual income form, that asks about contributions/committee involvement
• put an Education piece in the newsletter about what counts as volunteering
• consequences for non-involvement - becoming a member not in good standing? Members not fulfilling obligation as shareholder/member
• value of volunteer time compared to market rates (for housing)
• what is the cost of not volunteering/paying for property management
• creating work credits (i.e. 100 volunteer hours) - taking the long view of contributions and the ebb and flow of what members do
• one year without volunteering = monetary penalty added to member's housing charge
• why doesn't the Board call people in and ask them about issues they might have?
• encourage members to volunteer; we don't want regular volunteers to feel resentful, and we don't want to shame non-volunteers
• carrot vs stick - the carrot is more successful; possibility of incentives for volunteer work
• consider the social value of helping in the community; it's a good practice for children
• there is great value in showing up, helping and contributing
• positive effects of meeting neighbours, building community, ease of conversation and getting to know people
• activities that can be done on an individual member's schedule
• recording volunteer activity and/or meeting attendance
• offer education on the physical and other benefits of volunteering (Gladwell* example about heart attacks); articles and/or interviews in the newsletter about the medical and measurable benefits

*An excerpt from Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/books/chapters/chapter-outliers

Grounds Report for April

Submitted by Pamela Boyd

The Grounds committee is in the calm before the bursting-of- spring storm, hoping and encouraging everyone to plant those egg carton seedings - flowers, herbs, veggies - for planting in the gardens a month or so hence and trading up with neighbours.  

Watch for Spring Shoots, a co-op wide event in mid May for:

the trading of seedlings,
the sharing of tips and gardening ideas,
an amazing weed finding game with prizes and tons of fun,
the drinking of tea and the munching of goodies and….
the watching of neighbours finally crawling out from
their winter hovels, white and creaky, the kids taller
and bigger and stronger than ever.  

from clipartfox.com/

Composting

The City has announced an expansion of their waste and recycling bylaw.   It states; “Similar to our multi-family recycling requirements, your building owner or manager will be responsible for setting up a food and yard waste diversion program.”

We’ll be working on the details for this over the next few months to have a full composting program up and running by the fall or sooner.  Watch for updates.

Many thanks to whoever drained Sunnyhill Lake.    

HILLHURST SUNNYSIDE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

Submitted by Eric Moschopedis via HSCA newsletter:

Save the Date! Annual General Meeting April 25, 7pm

All residents of Hillhurst Sunnyside are invited and encouraged to attend. Come spend the evening with us and learn what the HSCA Board of Directors and our various committees are up to. What did we achieve in 2016? What are our plans moving forward in 2017?
 
Members must have their 2017 memberships purchased and paid for by March 25, 2017 in order to vote for Board of Director positions. Members of the community association who are in good standing are permitted to vote and run for board positions during the meeting. To access the nomination form online please visit: http://hsca.ca/annual-general-meeting-2/
 
Resident participation in the voting and nomination process is highly encouraged. Our Board of Directors at HSCA has an active involvement with numerous programs, events and activities in the facility. The Board also operates critical task forces and committee, such as the Planning Committee and the Sustainable Centre Task Force, which help shape long-term planning goals for the community of Hillhurst Sunnyside.
 
Please contact our Board Vice Chair Ken Uyeda, or our Executive Director Quentin Sinclair for details: k.uyeda@me.comor quentin.s@hsca.ca

SUNNYHILL EASTER POTLUCK