At yesterday's Board meeting, I was asked to draft an amendment to
Article 6, "Dues," of the bylaws, which currently reads:
ARTICLE 6: DUES
a. Membership dues are $60 per year or $6 per month.
b. The fiscal year shall begin on January 1 of each year. The
incumbent treasurer shall close the books prior to this
date.
c. The BOD shall be responsible for keeping the membership
informed as to Grex's financial status. Should circumstances
warrant a change in membership dues, the membership will be
notified and the issue discussed and put to a vote according
to the procedures of Article 5.
d. Dues paid to cover a membership of two years or less will
not be affected by an increase in dues.
In accordance with Section C, above, I propose the dues be changed to
three dollars ($3.00) per month or thirty dollars ($30.00) per year, and
that any members who pay dues at the current rate for the purpose of
voting on this proposal have those dues credited at the new rate, should
the proposal be adopted.
56 responses total.
Do we want to modify a. above to leave dues to the discretion of the Board?
That is generally preferable - it is uncommon to state the dues in an orgasnization's bylaws.
Joe: Do you prefer being specific in the bylaws rather than leaving it up to the BOD? All: What would the dues need to be in order for you to jump in and become a voting member? (Said realizing many simply aren't interested, at any price, in voting membership.)
My cutoff is somewhere between $15 and $20.
I figured it would be just as quick to follow the procedure outlined in the bylaws as it would be to give the authority to the Board. I started another item to discuss the question of how to make changes in the future. I think it is Item #287. As an item of administrative interest, please note that all three items currently proposed can be voted on simultaneously, since they don't conflict with each other.
Interesting. My initial thoughts on this would be to set the dues at $18 a year. But crunching a few numbers we get monthly expenses at ~$140 a month. $100 to Provide, ~$30 for a phone line, and a few bucks for things like domain charges, filing fees and certificates. So, even if we drop the last dial-in, we'd need ~75 members to maintain Grex as is. That's a lot of members. We have ~$1900 at present, so we could coast for a bit, but without reasonable support the party won't go on too much longer. As hard as it is to imagine 75 people giving $18 a year I'm left wondering if maybe it's time to close shop if 75 people can't or won't help with that amount. I suspect some folks are just going to sit back and see what happens - if others pick up the slack. But I'm also getting the feeling that they may be disappointed in how that goes.
Considering we aren't trying anything new around here, per se, but rather debating it ad nauseum (these sorts of what do we do discussions have been going on for years and on mostly the same topics), we probably will coast. But that's not what I'd like see. It is within our power to keep it from happening. This is partly where Mark's comment about "more enthusiasm" comes in. We need to think more about what we can do rather than about what we don't like, what we can't do, etc. You don't know until you try. And we need to act rather quickly. A lot depends on what we can accomplish in terms of applications and improvements to applications on the system that might attract new users (for example, those who want to avoid a command line). Whether such improvements would attract any new users, let alone any number approaching what we need to continue operation (with any dues level) remains to be seen. (But consider that we aren't asking people to become members in any significant way and are, after over 9 months, still trying to figure out to send out renewal notices!). I do think we can get more users if we "provide a system worth supporting" as one user said, and some users are asking for web-based applications (and note that this does not mean that if we implemented more web-based apps, the CLI apps would go away. There is no good reason they can't remain). The fact that we can't compete directly with Facebook or Twitter is not an issue since we are looking at a niche market anyway. And that doesn't mean we can't have a more modern interace to the system. There are plenty of small backwater web sites on the internet that have small but thriving, active communities. They aren't trying to compete directly with any of the big social web sites. We don't need to compete directly, either. I doubt we want to be that big of an operation, anyway. We can define success differently. However, without enthusiasm and a willingness to participate in a meaningful fashion, it all falls apart.
Might try dues of $25/annum. In another organization that has dues of $24/a, a lot of members send $25 anyway. Some sort of "round number" psychology is at play (not that 25 looks very round).
Would you send in $25 a year? Anyone?
Rather than $60, sure, $25 sounds really good in comparison. One big question, though, is what that dues level looks like to new users.
Yes. I would send in $25 a year. I would send in $60 too but I keep finding myself in financial situations where I just can't. But those are unanticipated things.
I'd front five fins for Grex.
Me too, assuming a fin is a five.
Yeah.
Kent, expecting new users to figure out that this is a membership organisation seems a bit much to me, unless the newuser blurb spells it out. I haven't read the blurb in a while, though. Expecting them to immediately become members is, I think, completely unreasonable, especially considering the expressed willingness of those who have been around a while.
I see nothing wrong with trying to encourage people to become members when they first log in. That's why having the system be more useful and inviting is a big thing. If all they see when they log in is a dead end, then, no, I doubt they'll see it as worth a membership. At that point, you've lost them and it's anybody's guess if they'll ever become a member. We're not doing a good job of advertising what we do and what the benfits of membership are, IMO, and we're making it worse by locking the front door and hollering "Who's there? What's the secret password?". But Grex has not been actively encouraging memberships for a long time now (years). As far as I'm concerned, any time is a good time to ask.
To me, the advantage of $18.00 per year is that those who pay for three months at the current rate, which is required to vote on this proposal, can get a year's membership without further ado. Setting the dues at $25.00 per year would require some further action to get a year's membership. The motivation for changing the dues right now is not so much to raise money as it is to raise membership. So, based on the discussion to date, I'm thinking the final text will look like: "Dues shall be $18.00 per year, or $2.00 per month, effective September 27, 2010." We still have a week to discuss the matter.
Sounds like good reasoning to me, Joe. I'd support this proposal. I guess now that both of your proposals have had a chance to sit a bit I'm wondering if you'd consider bringing only one forward to a vote. Doing otherwise is kind of confusing and if both pass it would be a mess.
I'd suggest abandoning monthly dues. It makes much more work for the treasurer as well as a lot of wasted busy work cutting people off and putting them back on if they don't get monthly dues in on time. Annual dues only makes the most sense.
I concur; if we are getting down into the $20-$25 range for annual dues, monthly just doesn't make sense in terms of labor costs. Might want to leave a six-month option for those who are cash-pinched, though, as a compromise.
I agree with members being given the choice to pay dues for either a six
month period or one year (or more in those increments).
We'll probably want to also change the bylaws which now state -
Article 2
b. To be eligible to vote, an individual must be a current member
and have paid a minimum of three months dues.
Maybe change it from three months to six? Or even one year?
If we only allow a minimum of 6 mos. that's more than 3 mos. so that's okay for voting. It would be good if we limit the number of by-law changes to just those necessary, unless we absolutely need to change them. Right now it's members we need for voting, but soon, it'll be members to help pay the expenses. One thing at a time, I know, but we do need to see a little farther into the future than just the end of the year. And we don't want to be moving the dues up and down every time we need money or voters. So, setting a reasonable level, a happy medium compared to similar systems, the users' idea of a good dues level, and the Board's idea of what we need to keep the system running, would probably be best.
The difference between six months dues and annual dues is too small to justify the extra work for a volunteer treasurer. If you want options, offer two or three year or more dues.
Kent, if we don't get members, we won't continue past the end of the year. If we get enough members, then the $18.00 per year will cover our expenses. I'm inclined to leave the proposal as is: folks can decide on their own whether to pay $6.00 just for an election, or $18.00 for the health of the system. Since there is little other reason to pony up for less than a year, I don't anticipate a lot of extra work for the treasurer.
Joe, if we get members, we can get past the end of the year voting, but we need more than that, most likely, to fund the system. For $18/yr. at our current expense rate of $140/mo. we'd need 93+ yearly members to fund one year. How likely do you think we are to get that many members? If we want to go with a yearly payment structure, we can try that. But if it doesn't work for the users who want to donate for less than a year (I agree a month by month plan is rather cumbersome), we'll need to change it, which is why it'd be good to leave such decisions up to the Board. One alternative, if we can't get the requisite number of members, is to reduce our expenses.
I say we get enough members onboard to give the system cooperative governance again then we can figure out how to raise the money needed to keep the lights on.
Right. Just beware of "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" thinking. I have no issue with increasing memberships to help govern the system, it's with coming up short 6 months later. As I said, one thing at a time, I know, but that's no reason not to think about what will happen farther out. I'd think that being reactionary and raising dues and lowering dues to changing events is something we want to avoid.
I agree: yo-yo dues are not a good idea. I really don't think that we would need to increase the dues before next December. As noted, we have enough in the bank to coast for a year. At $18.00 per year, ten new memberships each month is enough to meet current expenses and put some aside for the future. IF we come up with a whiz-bang idea that requires a huge outlay of cash in the next year, we should be able to finance it through a one-time fund-raising effort. (If we can't, it's probably not such a whiz-bang idea. ;)
The two-week discussion period expires this evening. At the moment, I'm inclined to proceed to a vote, which will require endorsement by some number of members. TS, would you care to share the number currently required? I realise that the number may not be the same today and at the end of the voting period. (I *really* hope the numbers will NOT be the same. ;) Some time tomorrow, I will enter the text of the proposal. It will be worded more formally than before, but the gist will be $18.00 per year or $2.00 per month.
The text of my proposal is: MOTION: That Article 6, "Dues", section a, be amended to read, "Membership dues are $18.00 per year, or $2.00 per month." Further, that this amendment be effective retroactively to September 27, 2010; any payment received by the Treasurer on or after that date shall be credited at the new dues rate.
Just to be clear, any payment received by the Treasurer as late as the evening of September 26, 2010, would and should be credited at the old rate.
(It's still better to make dues an act, not a bylaw..... Just have it say the Board can set the dues.)
I agree with resp:32. Why are we putting dollar amounts in the bylaws?
Because they are already there. The purpose of this proposal is to modify the amounts. I've set up a different item for discussion of how to modify the dues structure in the future.
I do hope this proposal gets an endorsement or two in the next day.
In skimming through this item, it looks like Mary endorsed this in resp:18; I'll endorse it, too.
There have been several proposals or possible changes to proposals, so just to be clear, which one are we trying to endorse at this point?
Response 30: The text of my proposal is: MOTION: That Article 6, "Dues", section a, be amended to read, "Membership dues are $18.00 per year, or $2.00 per month." Further, that this amendment be effective retroactively to September 27, 2010; any payment received by the Treasurer on or after that date shall be credited at the new dues rate.
I don't support this. How about this instead: MOTION: That Article 6, "Dues", section A, be amended to read, "Membership dues are set at the discretion of the board of directors." Further, that this amendment be effective retroactively to September 27, 2010; any payment received by the Treasureer on or after that date shall be credited at a rate set by the Board of Directors at the next board meeting.
That one (#39) is definitely easier, Dan. I'd support that.
I'd support Dan's motion too. But suggest it be simplified to: "Membership dues are set by the board of directors." It doesn't mean anything definite for the board to exercise discretion (although discretion is a good quality to exercise).
resp:41 I'm down with that.
But this is not the item for that proposal. See item 287.
OK, so the proposal had two endorsements within 48 hours of the final text being posted. Mr. Treasurer, Sir, is "two" ten percent of the current membership, allowing this to proceed to a vote?
I think this 10% endorsement for a vote thing needs to go away. That was enacted in the wake of the popcorn incident, in order to prevent jp2 from filing motion after motion to get the membership to force staff's hand in restoring the deleted items. However, that seems distinctly less relevant now that Grex has only a handful of members.
With only a handful of members, meeting the 10% requirement is even easier (e.g. with 6 members, one person is all it takes). I doubt it would prevent anyone from proposing a lot of changes (all you need are a couple friends to be members and away you go). It will become more difficult if we can increase the membership significantly.
I've started the voting on this proposal. It runs through October 28. Voting booth: https://grex.org/cgi-bin/pw/voting-booth
re 44 .. as of midnight last niht .. close of polls, total membershikp is 10 [ten] ... so 1 [one] woudl do it at the 10% level.
First time my vote has ever had such individual power! Did all the board members rejoin? I'd say that if any didn't, they can't vote at a Board meeting.
I see 6 of 7 Board members are members of Grex. One has said he would pay, but maybe has forgotten.
Re #25: Grex on a laptop. spam - whitelist. Bsdtalk held an interview with SDF, pretty soon he'll be on the Wiki - bunch of posers *sigh* anyway..
Nine eligible members voted. 9 yes, 0 no. The proposal PASSES.
Were there any other votes cast, John?
good question ... all votes are to be reported, onmly some count for pass/fail.
In addition to the official votes reported above, six non-members voted: 4 yes, 2 no.
tnx much .. goo djob.
You have several choices: