STICKY REUNION SITUATION

THE SITUATION:

At our next family meeting, one family member is adamant that a vote be taken as to whether spouses can be full voting members, which is how our by-laws currently read. The member wants to change this due to the behavior of one particular spouse that they want to exclude. How should we address this? 

DOUG HARRIS with THE FIX:

I don't have an answer, but I have an opinion.  Spouses should be full voting members. When you go back to each generation of any family, spouses are considered family. Grandma is grandma whether she was a spouse or blood relative, and the offspring of every union are considered blood. It seems counter-productive to make distinctions between blood relatives and spouses.

SHAMELE JORDON with THE FIX:

The Toomer Family Planning Committee voted on this. We knew the issue was not about "spouses" but a particular spouse. That being said, spouses have always supported the implementation of the reunion.  

SYLVIA FORD-GEORGE with THE FIX:

The essence of a family lies not just in its blood ties, but in the bonds forged through shared experiences and mutual respect. When a family member, whether joining through marriage, birth, or adoption, feels unrecognized or undervalued, it can lead to feelings of exclusion and hurt. So think carefully about making bylaw changes that exclude one member or another. In addition, what do the current bylaws say about making changes or amendments? Does your "next meeting" fit that criteria? If not you'll have to wait to address the issue. 

It may be beneficial to determine whether the conflict affects just one or two  members, or disrupts the family's overall harmony. In such cases, having a couple of family members mediate between the involved parties can be an effective way to resolve the situation. Ultimately, the goal should be to work collaboratively to ensure every member feels valued and included, reinforcing the idea that a family is whole when all its members, regardless of how they joined, are embraced equally.