Deirdre,
I share your frustration with email -- as I wrote recently, it really
sucks. However, it's all we have, and I do not agree about "no more
membership discussions." I wrote you yesterday Deirdre about your being
kinda autocratic about things recently. Is there a reason you feel you
need to "lay down the law" as it were? I think the main problem with
email is that people tend to read it very quickly and that creates
misunderstandings.
So I suggest, rather than not discussing things via email, that instead
we try to make email work.
One way to do that is for one to directly address comments that people
make to one. For example, I made several comments directly to you, but
shared with all (because I think that's important when discussing Board
matters) and you haven't responded. Could you please take another look
at my email and respond. If you think I'm being unreasonable somewhere,
I think I can take that criticism ;-). But you need to put it out
there. I have too much love for everyone on the board to ever let my
ego get in the way of trying to move us forward. Don't you think
everyone pretty much feels that way? And if not, jeez, we need to get
that out. After all, I think we are all on the same page, i.e., trying
to move the organization forward into the future.
But saying we shouldn't use email is a mistake, imo. Yes, it's hard,
but we can do it! It simply takes a little work to read stuff and not
let our egos get involved. If there are misunderstandings or
miscommunications, short of a conference call, I really think email is
the best thing we have, as bad as it is.
So, I would REALLy appreciate it if you could address my earlier
comments and coalesce everybody's comments regarding the bylaws into a
single document for us to iron out the places where there are
differences. I THOUGHT that was what you were going to do. I asked
about that several times in my recent email, but you didn't respond,
and I admit I am puzzled and concerned. Like I said, if I said
something inappropriate, I would just like to hear about it. I can take
it!!
Love to all,
Rory
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:12:39 -0400, Deirdre McClure wrote:
Hey everybody:
We're in the weeds here on the bylaws, and it's virtually impossible to
have a discussion of this type via email.
It's also very cumbersome and can make people not want to be on this
board. We do not want to make people feel discouraged when we are doing
such good work to move this organization forward. I think private
emails can be used sometimes to get a position clarified and discussed.
Or phone calls. Old school.
So....no more membership discussion! Everyone who wants to weigh in has
done so.
I will use Margaret's last email as a guide to update the bylaws. She
has spoken.
I have already made the other changes. I will resend them to all and
then we can send them to an atty.
Deirdre
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 14, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Leigh Mundhenk wrote:
Thanks, Rory. So I assume this means that Russ and Anna would be
non voting members? Or could they choose to be singing members, even if
they only sing with us occasionally?If do, do they have to pay dues
monthly, or just the month they are singing?
Leigh G. Mundhenk, PhD
WorkConcepts
mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx
(207) 772-2550
On Aug 14, 2015 10:06 AM, wrote:
Hi Folks,
I spoke with Russ on the phone. He thinks a lawyer looking at our
bylaws will reject anything that would allow us to lose control over
our organization. This is what he means:
Russ thinks ONLY singing members should be allowed to elect board
members. I.e., voting members MUST BE SINGERS. If we were to allow
ANYONE to vote so long as they paid dues (which was MY IDEA, and I see
now was a bad idea), then a group could easily come in and take over
just by paying their dues and overwhelming the rest of us when it came
time to elect the Board.
THEREFORE, let's make it clear that THE ONLY VOTING MEMBERS (i.e.
board electors) are Singing Members.
OK. So that's from Russ, and I agree if the rest of you do.
So the implication, it seems to me, is that we do not need to define
any other kind of member in the bylaws.
Sure, folks are encouraged to help us, and that includes financially --
either with money as they see fit, or even if they wish to make regular
payments. And we would thank them, and we could even call them "Friends
of Phoenix Chorale." But this is all something that can be decided by
the Board once we are incorporated. There is no need to put any of that
in the by-laws. The by-laws section on PC membership would simply state
that if you join as a singer, then you are a Member, you pay dues
(except for hardship/scholarship situations), and you get to vote in
the elections to the Board. Period. There's no need to formalize any
other relationship we have with folks. The Board can determine that
from time to time, and it may change as we go forward.
Wouldn't that really simplify the whole discussion about organizational
(as opposed to Board) membership?
Rory
