OK... but we cannot require board members be paying members, or we will
lose Russ....
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Deirdre McClure <dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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
*Work*Concepts
207-772-2550
mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx
www.linkedin.com/in/leighmundhenkcareerconsultant
