|
Grex > Coop6 > #52: Let's talk about our problem with voting on Grex | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 16 new of 90 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 90:
| 
Dec 19 18:51 UTC 1994 |
Grex is just now talking about financial planning, writing a budget,
maybe even initiate some fund accounting. An endowment fund got
mentioned late one night...so there is talk, but up to now its been
cash-in, cash-out (called "shoebox accounting"), and we've spent most
of what we've received.
|
kentn
|
|
response 76 of 90:
|
Dec 19 20:56 UTC 1994 |
Right. andyv, I don't think any of us mean to put down your ideas for
improving Grex's business situation. It's just that it hasn't up to
lately been a real necessity and the "shoebox" method Rane mentions has
worked. The words "planning" and "business" seem to be frowned upon
here. It took a fair amount of arguing and discussion to get some
people see that a non-profit organization is a business. I think Grex
will at some point need to institute more formal accounting methods as
well as a more formal planning process. If Grex runs true to form, it
will figure this out about a year after the sh*t hits the fan. So,
keep those ideas coming...maybe someone will be convinced a bit sooner
than they normally would have...
|
andyv
|
|
response 77 of 90:
|
Dec 20 02:13 UTC 1994 |
I find participating like this amazing. We are participating in a
metamorphosis. With our imaginations we can create the beast or butterfly
we will become if we dare. Or we can live day to day and let the oganism
continue hoping a strong attractor pulls us to a higher and better level.
|
steve
|
|
response 78 of 90:
|
Dec 20 04:18 UTC 1994 |
It is fun, isn't it?
|
mdw
|
|
response 79 of 90:
|
Dec 20 06:00 UTC 1994 |
All things being equal, the less money grex has, the better. More
specifically, we want to be sure that very nearly all the money we
collect is spent on useful stuff, that we are not collect either more or
less money than we actually spend, and that we are not building up more
of a surplus than absolutely necessary. In part, there are legal
reasons for this: the IRS frowns upon non-profits with excessively large
bank accounts. But the main reason is purely sociological: if Grex has
no money, then it is not an attractive target to "loot" - nobody will be
tempted to try to defraud grex or use the money for their own projects,
at the expense of grex. It is also easier for grex to get donations if
it is not perceived as "rich", and it is more likely people will do
favours for grex.
|
scg
|
|
response 80 of 90:
|
Dec 20 06:06 UTC 1994 |
But it is also important to have enough money to buy big things if we turn
out to need them. The new disk is a good example of that. If we had had
reserves of money, we could have bought a disk when the space ran out on
the old ones. As it was, we had to spend a long time doing a fund raiser,
putting up with countless times when Grex had no free space in the mean
time. It's all a matter of how much of a reserve we think we need for
times like that.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 81 of 90:
|
Dec 20 13:17 UTC 1994 |
Re 76: Kent - You talk about Grex as this big, uncontrollable "They".
It's not. If you see Grex going in the wrong direction, don't just throw
verbal darts at it: do some steering and send it in the right direction.
|
tsty
|
|
response 82 of 90:
|
Dec 20 16:55 UTC 1994 |
I would like to nominate .... whoops, wrong item (g).
|
kentn
|
|
response 83 of 90:
|
Dec 20 17:13 UTC 1994 |
I do my steering by throwing darts.
|
andyv
|
|
response 84 of 90:
|
Dec 20 17:47 UTC 1994 |
I don't think the IRS is worried about Grex even if it were to be carrying
five times wha we have now. So Marcus, I don't think Grex would be seen
as rich if we had $5000.
I don't think "if we need the money" is accurate, "when we need the money"
is more like it. I have had lots of times in life when I have been almost
broke and I don't recommend it for an individual or a business, it sucks.
Besides, there have been times I needed something right away (like dental
work) and couldn't get it done so I paid a higher price in the long run.
|
andyv
|
|
response 85 of 90:
|
Dec 20 19:01 UTC 1994 |
could we move our conversation on finances and planning to another area?
|
andyv
|
|
response 86 of 90:
|
Dec 21 02:46 UTC 1994 |
I hope I'm not talking to myself now. I just read the nominations and
realized how ridiculous it must look to an outsider and how irrelevant
voting seems to be. Popcorn nominates 6 people right off (including
herself ;-) for three positions. All agree and the nominating is done.
Now we are supposed to "vote?" Why don't we put the names in a hat and
pull 3 and then ask the members to vote for those three? What is the
point of voting when it doesn't really leem to matter who wins?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 87 of 90:
|
Dec 21 04:08 UTC 1994 |
I nominated the same 6 people who were nominated for the previous
board election, the one that didn't make quorum. Grex's bylaws say that
nominations need to be open for a certain number of days before voting
takes place. I figured I'd get the ball rolling by making some nominations
in order to expedite things in case we end up deciding we need to vote
again. Actually all six people would make great directors. The whole
election is a bit silly from that standpoint. Grex is lucky to have an
overabundance of qualified candidates: few groups are that lucky.
By the way - you mentioned that you wanted to take a discussion to a
different item. You're welcome to create one (or several). Type "enter"
to create a new item.
|
kentn
|
|
response 88 of 90:
|
Dec 21 04:09 UTC 1994 |
Very good point, andyv. Hopefully, like real soon now, the candidates
will be introducing themselves, their qualifications, and their views
in regard to Grexian issues (you could also browse for the previous
election item to get some idea of the candidates' positions, although
that item kind of died rather quickly and I must admit, it was hard to
differentiate the candidates for voting purposes--I do think they were/
are all well-qualified to run, however).
Anyway, be sure to ask some tough questions and get the candidates to
squirm a bit :)
|
kentn
|
|
response 89 of 90:
|
Dec 21 04:09 UTC 1994 |
(popcorn's :87 slipped in)
|
andyv
|
|
response 90 of 90:
|
Dec 21 17:29 UTC 1994 |
I still think the hat idea might result in a larger turnout. That way we
wouldn't have to feel like we are rejecting anyone. I may do it myself if
I feel everyone is equally qualified.
|