Wonderful. Hope you're enjoying SF. Wish we could see and hear the score. CU
soon, Hugs, Anna
Anna Noyes Benoit
---- Deirdre McClure <dmcclure@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi all,
Thank you, Anna, for weighing in. You won't be a non-voting board member,
however the membership ideas filter out. You're right, it wouldn't have any
real meaning.
The topic is on hold for the moment as we sort out all the ins and outs, plus
I am in SF this week conducting a silent film score. More bylaws work when I
get back.
Best to you and your family.
Deirdre
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 18, 2015, at 7:31 AM, <purple16@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
<purple16@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My first reaction is that it seems pointless to be a non-voting board
member. I'll have to consider whether I want to continue on. I've been
very busy with my sisters funeral and have not been able to read this long
email discussion in detail. Just catching up now.
Anna Noyes Benoit
---- Leigh Mundhenk <mundhenk@xxxxxxxxx> 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, <roryphoenix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
