Article 6, "Dues" 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.
Should Section C be amended to allow the Board to change the dues
structure without further review by the Membership?
33 responses total.
How about give the board the power to decrease dues, but still require a membership vote for an increase?
I don't think how we get to a reasonable price-point makes a whole lot of difference. There are enough checks and balances built in to make board control pretty benign. And it has taken us almost 20 years to get around to changing the dues structure for the first time so I don't think we'd be needing to float a lot of subsequent votes if we did hardcode a specific number into the bylaws. Either way, fine by me.
Nathan, I think the final section solves that problem: An increase does not affect anyone who has already paid their dues, unless they paid for more than two years. Then the third and subsequent years' dues would have to be adjusted. In two weeks, after sufficient discussion, I'll offer the text to replace the current section 6c. Right now, I'm leaning toward something along the lines of: "The Board shall propose a new dues structure in an item in coop. In accordance with the voting procedures in Article 5, the membership can put the question to a vote. In the absence of membership objection, the new dues structure will take effect on the first day of the month after the expiration of the discussion period set in Article 5." I'll probably want to break the current section C into two pieces, since I'm not convinced the statement, "The BOD shall be responsible for keeping the membership informed as to Grex's financial status," belongs in the Article on dues. Article 3, Board of Directors, requires the treasurer to publish monthly financial reports, which would seem to meet the requirement in this section of Article 6.
Do we always want to assume a coop conference will exist? We might have a differnet conferencing structure/application or other ways of communicating in the future. Jes sayin' we might want to make it more generic since we're taking time to modify it.
Makes sense, Kent. So we'd have something like, "The Board shall propose a new dues structure to the membership. In accordance with the voting procedures . . ."
Yes, that sounds better. Right now that would be via a coop item and probably a link to agora, but who knows what it'll be in the future?
Another question: Is the procedure proposed here any less cumbersome than the current procedure described in the bylaws? If not, is there any reason to change the procedure?
Some folks have expressed interest in revising the text of the bylaws to allow the Board of Directors to set the dues, without referring the matter to the members. I don't like that idea. I would at least want the members to have the option of not changing the dues.
Do you think the Board would change the dues without discussion with the members? And, if they did and most members didn't like it, what do you think would happen to them in the next election?
Those are hard questions to answer, Rane. They are easy when considering the current Directors and Members. But what about next year? And we do go a year between elections.
The reason for not putting dues in the bylaws is similar to the reason for not putting expenditures in the bylaws. The role of the bylaw is to regulate governance - who has authority for what and how that is allocated - not daily operations. The choice of hardware, for example, is not in the bylaws, although that choice can have a big effect on finances. That choice is given to the Board, but again it would not happen without a considerable concurrance of the (knowledgeable) membership.
I don't mind changing the bylaws to eliminate reference to the amount of the dues. I don't mind changing the way the dues are set. I do want to get the dues changed ASAP, and then, with at a more leisurely pace, work out how to make changes in the future. This item was intended to discuss the method of setting the dues. My other item was intended to comply with the bylaws as they are now.
The bylaws, as Rane points out, should not contain such operational specifics. Why not just fix the bylaws the right way, now, and be done with it?
Because it would take longer to make the changes sequentially. First we would have to take two to four weeks to give the Board the authority to set the dues, then we would have to wait for the Board to act and the membership approve. By following the procedure currently outlined in the bylaws, we can move in two to four weeks to set the dues. Which is more important to you? Do you want to lower the dues, to see if it encourages more people to join? Or do you want to change the way the dues are set? I wanted to make the two changes in parallel, but others thought it confusing. I'm still willing to go forward with amending the bylaws to eliminate the reference to the amounts of the dues. However, I'm not willing to give the Board authority to set the dues without a period for the membership to review and approve the change.
Everyone has been dawdling for months now....I thought it was the way Grex did business.
Yeah, but someone lit a fire under us a few weeks back.
I say we do it in parallel. The problem with changing the dues in the bylaws is that, basically, it means that the bylaws aren't going to get changed again any time soon to give board the authority to change the dues.
The by-laws state that while we can vote on multiple proposals at the same time, when one proposal conflicts with, or overrides, another the first one to be posted gets voted on first. So there are limits on how much parallel processing we can do.
So let's take a shot at the actual text of the motion: Article 6, Dues, shall be amended to eliminate Section a, to relabel Section b as Section a, and to replace the current Section c with new Sections B and C, as follows: "b. Although the Treasurer is to publish monthly financial reports, as stated in Article 3, the BOD shall be responsible for keeping the membership informed of Grex's financial status. "c. The Board shall propose a schedule of dues to the membership. In accordance with the voting procedures in Article 5, the membership can put the question to a vote. In the absence of membership objection, the new dues structure will take effect on the first day of the month after the expiration of the discussion period set in Article 5." Any endorsements? Any suggestions for re-wording?
The BOD is always "responsible" for everything, but it also delegates authority. If the Treasurer is to publish monthly financial reports, that is enough of a requirement. If he/she doesn't, elect a new one (the real responsibility of the BOD). b.above would actually give the Treasurer permission NOT to issue financial reports, by providing an "escape". Don't put any "althoughs" into the bylaws. In regard to c., is the new proposed schedule of dues to be put to a vote or not? If it is desired that the membership vote on new dues, just make that a requirement. (Can you imagine not even one member objecting to a dues increase?) If you want to streamline the procedure a little, require a member vote only for a dues increase.
My intent of C is to give the membership the opportunity to reject a dues change before it takes effect. And yes, I can see all members accepting the need for, and thus not objecting to, a dues increase. I can also see a member rejecting a dues decrease.
iwlta: loginid rcurl just contributed 3-mos membership dues ($18) through our web site ... http://cyberspace.org/member.xhtml and so, not only will rcurl;s vote be tallied .. it also will count toward pass/fail results. just so you know, any new/renewed membesrships effective before the ballottoing closes, will count toward the legal results. other voters/votes will be tallied adn recognized. you voice can both be heard (non-members) and be influential (members) as well
Final text: Article 6, Dues, shall be amended to eliminate Section a, to relabel the current Section b as Section a, to replace the current Section c with a new Section to be labeled "b", as given below, and to relabel the current Section d as Section c: "b. The Board shall propose a schedule of dues to the membership. In accordance with the voting procedures in Article 5, the membership can put the question to a vote. In the absence of membership objection, the new dues structure will take effect on the first day of the month after the expiration of the discussion period set in Article 5."
If this proposal is approved, Article 6, "Dues," will look like this:
ARTICLE 6: DUES
a. The fiscal year shall begin on January 1 of each year. The
incumbent treasurer shall close the books prior to this
date.
b. The Board shall propose a schedule of dues to the membership.
In accordance with the voting procedures in Article 5, the
membership can put the question to a vote. In the absence of
membership objection, the new dues structure will take effect
on the first day of the month after the expiration of the
discussion period set in Article 5.
c. Dues paid to cover a membership of two years or less will
not be affected by an increase in dues.
Hmmm.... Looks like I left something ambiguous: what happens if members do object? The last sentence of Section b should probably be changed to "The new dues structure will take effect on the first day of the month after the expiration of the discussion period set in Article 5 or on the first day of the month after the approving vote, should one be called." In the case of a disproving vote, the dues change would, of course, not take effect.
The treasurer cannot "close the books" before the new fiscal year starts. A "fiscal year" is such that deposits and withdrawals can be made at any time during that period. Omit "incumbent" in referring to those in any office. There is no other treasurer than the treasurer, for example.
Re #22: I had to figure out how to use the Grex dues payment system, which is configured for $6/m and $60/a dues, to pay a year's dues in the new dues rate of $18. So I upped for 3 months @ $6. IF the new dues rate passes, the retroactive clause will give me a year's membership at the new rate. If it doesn't pass, though, I'm stuck with just 3 months..... Folks, please vote for the revised dues! 8^}
It's tempting to leave bad enough as it is. ;) So far, this proposal has generated no endorsements. Nor has any request for changes indicated that such a change would result in an endorsement. 'Twould appear that cross was right, and the issue is dead.
I'm thinking that since we are just now setting a new dues rate that it will probably be some time before another is needed. If so, it would make sense to wait until the next change is indicated and at that point ask that the board be given the authority to set the rate.
Or just stick with the current method? A proposal, a discussion, endorsements and a vote?
Works for me. I really don't see how raising dues could ever be seen as an urgent matter. Dues are for long term budgeting.
So in essence, we have the Board decide what they want for a dues structure via the usual consensus. Then put it to a user vote using the usual process (post proposal, endorse, vote). That seems to retain the member involvement we want. If the Board gets to changing the dues to often or tries to raise them too much, the member will have the opportunity to vote the proposal down.
And we leave the amount of the dues in the bylaws. Works for me. :)
You have several choices: