|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 56 responses total. |
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.
|
jgelinas
|
|
response 44 of 56:
|
Oct 15 17:41 UTC 2010 |
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?
|
cross
|
|
response 45 of 56:
|
Oct 16 04:45 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
kentn
|
|
response 46 of 56:
|
Oct 16 12:01 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
remmers
|
|
response 47 of 56:
|
Oct 18 12:45 UTC 2010 |
I've started the voting on this proposal. It runs through October 28.
Voting booth: https://grex.org/cgi-bin/pw/voting-booth
|
tsty
|
|
response 48 of 56:
|
Oct 29 06:58 UTC 2010 |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 56:
|
Oct 29 21:25 UTC 2010 |
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.
|