I too read the by-laws changes point by point.  I went so far as to cut and
paste for comparison because that is the way I'm used to seeing by-laws
changes. I had a long phone call with Coach Linda yesterday and we discussed
my issues.
The reason I said vote no was that I believe if we have pieces of new and
pieces of old that would be a mess for by-laws (ie: some new parts adopted
and some not). Linda disagreed and said that we need the new 3rd VP and
delegate changes.

I realize that these revisions reflect an incredible amount of volunteer
work by the By-Laws Committee!  I know the few hours I have put into reading
them is insignificant in comparison to the work done by this committee.  I'm
sorry if I have offended anyone by my stand.

I've sent her my break-down Article by Article.  Some of the changes are for
clarity, some for checks and balances, some needed additions. Some moved to
"policy" and others simply omitted.  I also picked up a few inconsistencies.

I believe my major disagreement with changes as presented is:

1. that we weren't informed of where omissions would go (discard or policy).

2. the format is difficult to read and make intelligent comparisons and
decisions.  It meets the letter of the law as regards presenting By-Laws
changes (ie: a copy of old and a copy of new), but needed a better explanation.

3. I personally disagree with the IBCLC members only vote.  I don't believe
it is sensitive to our international status(Although I think the current
thread on qualifying for different professions is very interesting and
causes thought.)

4. I strongly disagree with the omission of the part about "funding from
industries producing breastmilk substitutes, feeding bottles or teats, or
whose products are produced or marketed as being partial or total
replacements for breastmilk."  I feel this needs to be a part of our By-Laws
(it could be 11.3 under Conflict of Interest), not a policy.  It is a
stronger statement as part of the By-Laws.

Sincerely, Pat