Following is a copy of the letter sent to Judy Brosseau, Canadian delegate
to the ILCA Board. I, like Chris, am a little reluctant to use Lactnet as a
forum,, but since there has already been some discussion, I thought I'd add
my thoughts.

Leslie Ayre-Jaschke, BEd, IBCLC
Peace River, Alberta, Canada

>Dear Judy--
>The discussion on Lactnet about proposed changes to the ILCA bylaws has
definitely been interesting. I spent the afternoon going over the old bylaws
and new (which I just received today, Wednesday), re-reading the concerns
expressed, and reading the ILCA Board's response to the concerns.
>
>I am concerned that the proposed changes to the bylaws have not been laid
out in a manner that makes it easy to determine just what is being changed.
This is a pretty major rewrite and I think the sections being proposed for
deletion, along with the proposed changes, needed to have been highlighted
somehow.
>
>Regarding Linda Smith's proposal to include Article III of the 1994 bylaws
as a section or preamble for the new bylaws: I think this would be a step in
the right direction to reassure members that ILCA's guiding principles,
which some of Article III certainly sound like, aren't going to be lost, but
will remain in the bylaws.
>
>I don't think Article III. 1 needs to be included; III.2 is probably policy
rather than a guiding principle; but III.3 .4 .5 could be guiding
principles. Inclusion of these statements is important to ensure the
membership and others are aware of ILCA's commitment to these concepts and
to reassure that these basic principles cannot be altered without consulting
the membership. The bylaws are the public document and it seems to me
appropriate to include these guiding principles in there.
>
>I support the use of the word "consequence" rather than "hazards" in
Article II.6. My dictionary defines the terms as follows:
>consequence: 1. a result or effect 2. the relation of a result or effect to
its cause 3. logical result; deduction; inference 4. importance
>
>hazard: 1. a chance of loss or harm; risk; danger; peril 2. chance; venture
>
>I think consequence is the stronger and more specific of the two words.
Hazard is shocking and makes people sit up and take notice, but I feel
consequence is more accurate in this instance.
>
>I have a concern about the change that makes the voting member category
available only to IBCLCs. Since this designation may be difficult to obtain
or maintain in many parts of the world, I'm not sure this is appropriate at
this time. I would, however, support that requirement for voting members
from North America and other geographical areas, such as Australia,  where
certification is readily available and maintainable. As opportunities for
certification become more widespread, ILCA can then move to require IBCLC
designation for all voting members. Perhaps the honorary membership category
has been created to address this concern (if honorary members can vote), but
I'm not sure what the policy that defines this category says, so wanted to
express the concern.
>
>Regarding the concern expressed about the executive committee: As I re-read
back issues of The Globe discussing the move to a professional management
firm, it seems the board is making the transition from a working board to a
policy board, and some members may not be clear about what this involves.
Many boards have executive committees to speed the day-to-day work. Since
the board committees will be doing much of the development work, and their
reports need to be received and accepted by the full board (I assume this is
what the policies say), the majority of the work of the board is still
discussed by and ratified by the full board. Is this an accurate portrayal
of how the board will be operating?
>
>Perhaps members aren't aware that it is customary for boards to have policy
and procedures manuals which can be changed and added to without consulting
the membership; policy development is in fact the whole purpose of boards
that aren't working boards. John Carver has done some excellent work on
board development that helps delineate very clearly the job of the policy
board. He has a web page with a good explanation of policy governance. I
don't know if the ILCA board has looked into this model, but it is being
increasingly used by non-profit boards.
>
>I appreciate the opportunity provide feedback on the bylaws.
>
>
>cc Lactnet
>