Pittsburgh, PA The Future of Our Governing Body

I got this from the anonymous email forum for the suggestion box. I know who sent it in by the typing style but I won't say, though I wish you would have left your name because it is a valid point.

Any voting over new positions in the group should happen in August and have the new SWAP year begin in September for new offices.
> there should also be council positions that are in place to get things completed. For instance a council position for photographing club events, a position that is in charge of getting print items finished. That way more people can help out with items instead of 1 or 2. There are a lot of people that would like to help with things but are never given a chance

I'm going to address the first sentence last because I feel it is best left for last.

there should also be council positions that are in place to get things completed. For instance a council position for photographing club events, a position that is in charge of getting print items finished. That way more people can help out with items instead of 1 or 2.

I disagree, adding new people to our council is not what we need for this group. I believe a change is needed for the way we govern our club. I think we need to drop the whole Council thing the way we have it now and adopt a more real governing body for this club that would contain a; President, Vice President, Secretary, PR Officer and Treasurer. The more Council positions we add the more complicated things get. Now that we have had some time with our current Council I do not believe we should have any of the Reps on the Council. Though that is not to stop us from naming Reps for people who show that they deserve the title of being a expert in said aspect of the Star Wars Universe. It would be the direct responsibility of the new governing body of this club to delegate things out like taking Photographs or finding a means of printing an item. When someone is deemed in charge of a certain project it is he or she's responsibility to find those 1 or 2 people to help out.

There are a lot of people that would like to help with things but are never given a chance

I don't mean to be rude but if you never speak up or volunteer how are we to know? I try to involve as many people as possible, as well as hand out odd tasks for people to do to complete a project for the club. It seems the same 5 or 6 people are the one's donating time and helping out with projects, yet I hear things like "people want to help but feel like they can't speak up or that their idea will be shot down". That is complete bull, if you have an idea or suggestion post it here on the boards or raise your hand to speak at a meeting. If you are shy and don't want to suggest it yourself tell me and I will add it to the agenda anonymously.

Any voting over new positions in the group should happen in August and have the new SWAP year begin in September for new offices.

This is going to be very long, I apoligize. I agree that we need to start holding yearly elections. I think we can do it in a 3 month span. Here are the bylaws I propose we adopt:

I. Name

The name of this organization shall be the Star Wars Association Of Pittsburgh.

II. Purpose

The Star Wars Association Of Pittsburgh is an unofficial Star Wars fan club made up of people who enjoy the Star Wars films and their various spin-offs. The Star Wars Association Of Pittsburgh was created in order to give Star Wars fans in the Pittsburgh Metro area a chance to socialize and engage in activities such as collecting expeditions, movie outings, and conventions.

III. Policies

· The Star Wars Association Of Pittsburgh is not affiliated in any way with Lucasfilm, Ltd. or its subsidiaries.
· The Star Wars Association Of Pittsburgh does not discriminate on the basis of age, gender, race, nationality, religion, physical handicap, or sexual orientation.

IV. Membership

Membership is open to all interested persons, regardless of gender, age, religion, sexual orient

 

Rox, I think this sounds good.

My only concern is the definition of an active member. I don't think under that defintion I would be considered an active member. Now, I'm cool with being legally an "inactive" member but I was wondering if an active member could be someone who has attended at least 3 events, the most recent being within the last 3 months.

Other thoughts?- like I said, I don't really care how it shakes out. I'll be just as involved as an "active" member as an "inactive" member.

 

That should be re-worded. I would concider an active member as anyone who has attended 3 meetings in say a 6 month period?

 

Rox That sounds real good. Nice job writing things out.

 

Looks good. I agree with the changes Shewski suggested to the active membership qualifications. Also, shouldn't race be an item that the group doesn't discriminate against? We wouldn't want any Geonosians or Droids being treated unfairly by the group now would we?

I think that 5 officers is too many. Couldn't the PR rep's duties be done by the secretary? And finally, the treasurer should have to report all financial activity to the group at some point during every meeting.

 

I'm cool with it. (Check your PM's Rox for some other suggestions)

I'd still like to have the reps around if even just as a fun thing. I know Tony and I have kicked around the idea of haveing a 12 rep "council", so this council just doesn't have any official bearing on the group, just folks who have shown a high proficiency in an area of SW.

here's some of the rep positions that either are in existence or have been thought of:

Costume/Props
Toys/Collectibles
Books
Comics
Games (video, board, computer)
Trivia

Again this group would have no responsibilties to the group persay other than helping members who have a need or a question in that area.

I know Tony is still going to be our Costume guy and will continue to help. I enjoy writing my reviews and letting you all know what's coming up, when, where and how much.

 

I would still like to have the Reps, just not on the governing body of the group. They are a useful and fun part of being a member here.

 

Overall, it looks good to me. Just a few suggestions . . .

I agree with Fluke. "Race and Nationality" need to be added to the Article III Policies and Article IV Membership (it seems you did try to make a very good comprehensive list, though)

I'm not crazy about the definition of "Inactive membership" --> · Inactive Membership: Only active members are allowed to vote in any club elections and attend any meetings or activities that are funded with club monies.

It does not give a clear definintion. Based on the active membership definition (side note, I agree with the three meetings in past 6 months rule) Inactive members would be not attending at least 3 meetings in 6 months

The officers of the Active membership is achieved when a person attends three or more consecutive meetings and/or events shall consist of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Public Relations (PR) Officer

huh? Did you mean to say Officers must be Active members?

Another agreement with Fluke to combine Secretary and PR Officer.

That's it for my two credits. Seems like a good set of rules.

 

I like your ideas for the group Terry.


I say leave PR and secretary seperate just for the less work load on one person. Just my opinion but its better the have something spread among 2 people than having one shoulder it all.

 

Very nice. I don't know why, but I laughed when I read under the VP's duties that he would take over should the president die. I know that would be a serious thing, but I still laughed. I feel bad now
Anyways, I think 5 council positions is a good idea, that way should the council have to make an emergency decision, there could be no ties. Worst case, we find out we don't needto split them, and we unify the positions later.
Also, just a clarification on something I was confused about. Sal, right now, is our city/chapter rep(whatever the right term is). When the elections take place, would the newly elected president then become CR, or would Sal keep that position? Not quite sure how that would work, and just wondering.

 

About the city rep... either the pres or vice pres does it or the officers appoint someone to that position.

 

- Changed the Active Membership definition.
- Updated Article 3 with the suggested changes.
- Fixed the mess in the first paragraph about Officers.

Fluke the City Rep position would go back to the President once the new elected officials are in place.

The PR and Secretary spots can easily be combined but I felt it would be best to have an odd number of Council members. Though we can always change that down the road.

 

Um heres and a thought a kinda old one from before but how about doing this:
Elimiating the officers all togheter and just having the council run things. It'd almost be a total democracy, no one could do feel in a higher spot than any ohter. The city rep postion could be then set up as seniorest member of the council (Age or time served) BUT-It doesn't mean anything at all, just a title since I'm guessing we have to have one if we don't eliminate it totally.

Just my thoughts after some time to think it over.

 

I would love to go back to the old days where there was just a handful of us and we sat around a table chatting about. As great as that would be Tom it's not feasible in my opinion. There has to be some sense of order in all things. Especially with the size of our group.

 

As I always do,I'm posting my thoughts.I do not agree with this course of action.I feel that it will create a strong political situation and breed favoritism.In my past expieriences,this HAS been the case in groups to which I belonged,and it has changed them in drastic ways,most often-not for the greater good,which is why I'm no longer a member of those groups.Our FF is as much mine as it is everyone elses and I'll not see this happen.I've spoken my thoughts and opinions on this to all before,and I do so now.
It seems to me that the way our group functions is well BUT,the equallity (sp?) has been lost(know and understand that I AM NOT pointing fingers,as that is not my point) For a council of 12 to lead a group of over 10,000,I think says something, without politics,which was my intention around this time last year when I suggested the council idea.To give ideas,do events,speak openly and such TOGETHER,ALL together.Something which I see is not now happening and should be corrected not taken apart and reassembled differently.
More thoughts to come...

 

With all the in fighting we have seen in the last year, I don't think things have been working. I also hate politics and the petty nonsense that goes with it. I am frustrated and upset that things have arrived at a point where people feel that they can not freely speak their minds. This was happening when we were just a small group of people gathering in book store cafes. How much worse will this get as we grow?? I think an organized structure will help reduce this, especially with elected, rather than appointed, leadership. Groups of people need to have someone to organize things. If no one is 'in charge' often things do not get done. 'Everyone' assumes 'somebody' will do it, so 'nobody' does it.

We need to find a way to balance organization with equality. A way where someone will be in charge to organize things, but where people will feel comfortable in contributing.

Currently, the only ones who ideas are being heard are those with loud and dominate personalities. Although Master Fenn kindly did not point fingers, I regret my tendency to 'boss' has contributed to the hostile environment. I have a 'if you want something done, do it' approach to life that combined with a certain lack of tact often means I unintentially run right over people. I had hoped by now everyone would have realized that I do want to hear the thoughts of others and would love to see eveyone plan & carry out events, but sometimes you have to get my attention with a 2 X 4 to the back of the head.

Although I have rambled on a bit, the casual, informal groups of people meeting together isn't working. Only those with strong, outgoing personalities are being heard. We need a better organized structure that will make sure that everyone's voice is heard.

Of course, the flip side of that is that if you have something to say, then say it. If not comfortable in front of the group, then privately to someone who is comfortable speaking out. And accept, that just because someone disagrees with what you say, its nothing personal. For example, Master Fenn and I are currently on different sides of this organizational issue, but I don't think its for any other reason than we have different viewpoints on this particular issue. We can disagree without making it a personal vendetta. To do so would lead directly to the type of politics and infighting which is causing us so much difficutly now.

 

I personally liked the ideas Terry put forth and I also agree w/ Tony that that type of setup can lead to alot of politics. I also like the idea of a 12 member council. I personally don't know what would be best for the group, all I know is this grop means alot to me and I don't want to see it destroyed by infighting and lack of a solid leadership panel of some sort. Whatever is decided I'll go with.

 

At this time a 12 member council would be too much. We have been running relitively smoothly with our current Governing Body. The only and main differences with the new one would be that we have definitions to those spots. If it wasn't for small occurences of infinghting because we wouldn't even be doing this anyway. Keeping things small is best. If we have a council of 12 there would be ties all the time. Plus if you think there is favoritism now it would triple then. The if mommy said no then daddy will mentality would mostly like set in as well.

 

A group of 4 officers with the president getting two votes would eliminate any ties if everyone decided to go with four, but I don't think it's a real big deal.

I do think however, that the voting members should be able to cast a vote of no confidence which would mean another election to replace those offers. Suppose that the officers were abusing group funds three years from now, how would they be removed from their spots?

 

I agree, but since Chris always gives us a report at meetings on what get's spent out of the account it's current'y a non-issue but also one that will need to be addressed.

 

Should we set up a safe-guard in case of bad leadership in the future?

In the unlikley case that an elected president abuses SWAP (such as deleting files and wasting SWAP money on himself), you may consider a "UN" so to speak. This person would remain an Administrator to all of the website's systems, and have the legal ability to (with an 80% vote from the active members) kick out the President and replace him with the "UN". This person would have to be someone we already trust (Terry, Sal, and Chris[GC] come to mind).

Ideas?

 

Terry, if you would kindly post the ideas you think are worthy of putting here that I PM'd you about, I would appreciate it.

I just want everyone to know that I discussed my suggestions with someone first, so it doesn't appear that I am passing judgment, imposing my will or anything remotely close to that.

At the meeting that we intend to discuss this, I will bring up any other ideas that Terry didn't mention from me or any new ones I may come up with.

For now, I do not feel comfortable with posting anything, as recent events have upset me greatly and I do not want to be the cause of dissention(sp?) or disharmony.


Again, I will make an apology to any and everyone who may have been affected by said recent events.

I will explain myself and my "motivations" fully in public at that meeting so that anyone who has a question, felt wronged or anything else along those lines has an opportunity to see my genuine remorse, my willingness to discuss those events, proposed changes to leadership and so on.

(Terry) feel free to edit as you see fit. At the least please post some of the suggestions I had.

Thank you.
?Sal

 

Will do. Sorry I must have missed where you said you wanted me to post them and not you.

Edit: What Sal sent me

One thing I want to address is an age requirement for officers. Without this looking like discrimination, teens have enough to deal with just being teens, but on top of that they have to deal with SAT's, planning college and so on. Beside this we may have to consider the "maturity" level of said teen.

Just look at the schedules of most of our teen members. Could they actually be able to hold any of the positions. This might be the case but should be looked into further.

Since Chris is Secretary/Treasurer right now I don't see a need to make that two seperate positions. She has her name on the checks so to speak so she should remain Treasurer, but I also think she does a fine job of Secretary as well.

One other thing, when it comes to nominations, a person cannot nominate themselves and the nomination must be "seconded" by someone else who is not that specific person. Yeah I might be taking myself out by mentioning this but nominating this way just seems right to me. Also, anyone who nominates cannot second another person in the same category of position.

In otherwords you can nominate one person in every category but may not second after that in any category they already nominated someone and vice versa. This will hopefully keep down the number of people being nominated. Only active members can nominate or second.

If a member is nominated for more than one position that person must proclaim which ONE position they will run for.

I thought you only wanted a three member governing body. How about:

Pres: (as you described) and who is also the City Rep
Vice pres: Who is also PR rep (so they have some specific duties, instead of just being a figure head like most VP's are.)
Sceretary/Treasurer: both duties combined.

I don't think we're big enough yet to seperate the last category.

I have to agree with him when it comes to the age for our officers. If you are not a High School graduate and 18 years I do not think you should be elligable to be an officer. My main reasons for backing his thoughts are:

1. If some kind of legal issue would arise an adult(someone 18+) would have to be held responsible.
2. I may be wrong about this but I believe in this state you have to be atleast 18 to make a legal binding contract.

 

Those soud pretty good to me.

 

How will the ideas that are brought up be decided to be a rule or not? Just an observance.