Jarrod Major wrote:
Oh yes, I do realise that, but the pay-to-vote is my biggest grief :) I would be happy to pay for the other perks, but paying for the opportunity to vote rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps another source of funding for the group could be to pass the hat at meetings with the intent of getting a 'big-name' speaker out to a future meeting.
Ian,
As a former Executive and one of the individuals who helped bring the two tiered system in I feel the need to defend it. If you disagree with the reasoning that is your prerogative but I thought you should know some facts.
I appreciate your detailed discussion. I apologize for causing you to feel the need to defend the system. That was not my intention. Perhaps another instance of bad wording / context on my part.
We felt that in order to enable CLUG to grow that we should incorporate as a Society. There are fees associated with dealings with the government of this nature. There are continuing fees incurred for changes to our organization that must be filed yearly and in some cases several filings per year have the potential of incurring more fees.
Being involved in other organizations, I realize all of these administrative burdens. They can become a real hassle, especially the automatic non-profit audit process. It is a major annoyance that always seems to creep up at the point when everyone has forgotten about it. Being a Society, I don't think you have that concern though, although you may have to deal with reporting to major sponsors of events, or the club as a whole.
You probably do not appreciate what a dilemma we faced in the decision to create the two tiered membership. We first and foremost did not want to alienate the people that had been involved in CLUG since its inception. We also decided that in order to keep accurate records we needed to provide something for the Tier Two member. We needed to generate funds to pay for things like our Society name search, the registration of the name with Alberta Government. Taking in a steady stream of funds also necessitated opening a bank account and the account as it is incurs monthly fees. We also wanted to build a treasury to enable us to do some fun things for the group.
I do appreciate the dilemna. I have been involved in other organizations that have had a similar (or same) dilemna. Some made the same decision as CLUG, others have not. I guess I was just voicing that there are alternatives, or more importantly, additions to the current funding model that could provide perks to those willing to pay, as well as more benefits to those who choose not to.
The Tier Two members are granted voting privileges while the Tier One members are not. We came to the determination that as members with vested interest in the group only Tier Two's should be allowed to vote, it is their money we are dealing with. I would like to point out that as a Tier One member you reap the benefits that Tier Two members enjoy without laying down any money. We do not charge admission for any meetings or events. If we were to ever bring in a speaker like RMS, I feel it safe to say that you would still not have to pay anything. Seems like a deal to me.
At any rate, we also realized that charging any amount was going to annoy people and that this issue would rear it's ugly head from time to time. I wish we lived in a Utopian Society where money is not required but we do not. There are real things we need to pay for, donations only go so far. I believe in Open Source and Free Software. The idea of charging people for membership seems wrong but it was felt to be necessary.
I think you are underestimating the power of donations. When I was attending the OCLUG meetings in Ottawa, the donation system caused a different problem. Too much money. The club was carrying huge amounts of money forward every year (thousands of dollars) due to donations at meetings and larger donations by individuals. I believe the hall rental was costing around $75 a night, and the donations from the 'pass the hat campaign' at the meetings were often resulting in two or three times as much 'income'. The typical body count for meetings was 30 (assuming snow) to 100 (assuming nice day). The meetings I attended at CLUG all had at least 30 people. Perhaps this is another avenue of revenue generation for the club.
The voting membership may decide to change this and have that option at any time. And frankly, just because you are a Tier One, it does not mean you don't have a voice. The members of this group are quite reasonable.
It's about choice, we have a two-tier membership and you have chosen to remain a tier one, that does not make you less of a member. I like to think that a member's worth is determined by how much they put into the group. Comments like yours serve as destructive tools that wear down what those of us who decided to become actively involved built up.
hmm. So I have a voice, but it is a destructive one :) I apologize again if you saw it that way. Perhaps I am just used to the OCLUG way (just go over to oclug.on.ca and read a bit of the archives, I think you will see what I mean) where members are invited to speak their minds.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Tier One is not less of a member than a Tier Two. I now understand the decisions that have been made and why, but the only way you can convince me is by allowing Tier One members to vote :) That said, it is not something I will persue for many reasons: 1) I don't have time to contribute to CLUG in a capacity that I would feel good attempting to change this, 2) I am a new member (only been around 2 years with maybe 10 total mailing list postings), 3) the dynamics (or perhaps policy) of the group in general does not seem to tolerate extremely outspoken individuals (Note: I think this is a good thing for the most part), 4) I appear to be the only one with this concern.
Nobody is profiting directly from the funds we take in (certainly not the Executive). We have the treasury in hopes that we can make our meetings and events more interesting.
I was never implying anything of the sort. I trust the Executive fully, and believe that they are doing a great job, both in the past, and the present.
Cheers
Ian.
Jarrod Major
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
_______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
