|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 56 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 19 of 56:
| 
Oct 5 20:43 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 20 of 56:
|
Oct 5 21:06 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 21 of 56:
|
Oct 5 22:24 UTC 2010 |
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?
|
kentn
|
|
response 22 of 56:
|
Oct 6 01:48 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 56:
|
Oct 6 03:57 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 24 of 56:
|
Oct 8 13:51 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
kentn
|
|
response 25 of 56:
|
Oct 8 19:07 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
mary
|
|
response 26 of 56:
|
Oct 8 19:59 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
kentn
|
|
response 27 of 56:
|
Oct 8 23:50 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 28 of 56:
|
Oct 9 12:45 UTC 2010 |
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. ;)
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 29 of 56:
|
Oct 11 19:43 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 30 of 56:
|
Oct 12 14:54 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 31 of 56:
|
Oct 12 14:54 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 56:
|
Oct 12 20:27 UTC 2010 |
(It's still better to make dues an act, not a bylaw..... Just have it say the
Board can set the dues.)
|
cross
|
|
response 33 of 56:
|
Oct 13 04:07 UTC 2010 |
I agree with resp:32. Why are we putting dollar amounts in the bylaws?
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 34 of 56:
|
Oct 13 19:57 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 35 of 56:
|
Oct 13 23:56 UTC 2010 |
I do hope this proposal gets an endorsement or two in the next day.
|
denise
|
|
response 36 of 56:
|
Oct 14 02:14 UTC 2010 |
In skimming through this item, it looks like Mary endorsed this in
resp:18; I'll endorse it, too.
|
kentn
|
|
response 37 of 56:
|
Oct 14 03:26 UTC 2010 |
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?
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 38 of 56:
|
Oct 14 12:21 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
cross
|
|
response 39 of 56:
|
Oct 14 14:23 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
kentn
|
|
response 40 of 56:
|
Oct 14 17:27 UTC 2010 |
That one (#39) is definitely easier, Dan. I'd support that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 41 of 56:
|
Oct 14 19:40 UTC 2010 |
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).
|
cross
|
|
response 42 of 56:
|
Oct 15 08:35 UTC 2010 |
resp:41 I'm down with that.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 43 of 56:
|
Oct 15 13:48 UTC 2010 |
But this is not the item for that proposal. See item 287.
|