I agree. Board members shouldn't have to be members, imo. It's common
to want people from "outside" to be on a board.
Incidentally, Russ has been very supportive financially, as I think
everybody knows. So while I agree you shouldn't have to pays dues to be
on the Board, are you just assuming he wouldn't because he won't be
singing?
Rory
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 16:55:35 -0400, Leigh Mundhenk wrote:
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 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 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 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
--
Leigh G. Mundhenk, PhD
Consultant/Coach/Trainer
WorkConcepts
207-772-2550
mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx
www.linkedin.com/in/leighmundhenkcareerconsultant
