I used this model because I have seen it used so many times in other bylaws for
choirs of this type, and it appears to work. Some people may want to keep their
hats in the ring even when not singing, and financially speaking, it's
advantageous for us to let them do it. No one has to, it's just an option. And
Linda cited voting rights, that's a good point.
It's not just a choir, it's an organization. Its long-term viability will rely
on many supporters. The supporting (or associate, or non-singing) member option
keeps people, if they want to be, involved. And it gives others (spouses, for
instance) a way of being involved. Like a booster club. But there is no hidden
imperative to become one of these members. And the dues could just be a
sustaining 25/year, not the regular fee. We'll need to discuss that.
If I had seen a different model used so prevalently in other bylaws, I would
have used that instead. Imagine, 10 years from now, choir of 80, some founding
members still belonging but not participating actively. That's powerful!!
Deirdre
On Aug 12, 2015, at 3:38 PM, Leigh Mundhenk <mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I really think we are making this unnecessarily complicated. If we have a
singing member who needs to take a break, then I think he/she should have a
choice as to whether he or she pays dues, much as we do during the summer. I
cannot understand why somebody would want to pay dues on monthly basis. If
they are not benefiting from singing let us. The dues are to finance are
singing, provided by those who are singing. I suggest one category for dues
paying singers. All others can be friends who make donations as they choose.
Anna and Russ, would you please weigh in on this.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Deirdre McClure <dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi all..
on this:
"Also about the membership -- notice I am suggesting the 2 classes of
members be called "Singing Members" and "Supporting Members" (always
capitalized.) This makes it clear that Supporting Members pay their full
dues. Otherwise, they really aren't supporting us. Perhaps we have a third
category called "Friends of Phoenix Chorale" who don't sing and don't pay
dues, but only help out in other ways like publicity, or arranging chairs,
or whatever. And that's great! But I just don't think these "friends" ought
to have the same vote on issues that singers and folks offering financial
support do."
If one of the current singing members gets the flu, breaks a leg, leaves for
a sabbatical in Thailand, or for whatever reason needs to drop out for a
while, but they still want to remain a regular member in good standing, we
need a way to do that without them being a singing member. That's just one
reason for Associate Members, which is what I am now calling them.
We could have 3 categories: singing, associate, and friends. Friends could
just be non-dues paying helpers who don't do any governance or committees
but who set up chairs and are in the larger community.
Deirdre
--
Leigh G. Mundhenk, PhD
Consultant/Coach/Trainer
WorkConcepts
207-772-2550
mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx
www.linkedin.com/in/leighmundhenkcareerconsultant
