Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
After reviewing the proposed bylaws, I think John is correct in noticing that the order of ranking officers is not explicitly stated. The offices are listed in a certain order, which implies the order but does not clearly enumerate it. I don’t think that it is a big deal either way.
Very nice job on cleaning up a few ambiguous things.
katste (Steve)
We second Hack1of2 in support of the change to logging on once a year to retain membership. To have to re-register each year seemed redundant.
Jim and Linda’s thoughts to retain the Roberts Rules of Order phrase is worthy of more thought. We have been involved in probably thousands of School Board, government, non-profit and foundation meetings and almost all of them include RRO as the guiding process to run meetings. It is the universally accepted standard for procedures to run orderly meetings.
That being said, we think that, at times, skilled parliamentarians have used RRO to actually “disrupt” an orderly meeting to avoid a vote (think Congress, etc) or to unintentionally turn simple decisions into boring marathons where a tedious hang-up with procedure overrules common sense.
On the other hand, RRO ensures, as indicated by Jim and Linda, that everyone present gets a real voice in the proceedings in a clearly defined equal and orderly manner, if implemented properly.
Although we have a great deal of experience operating under RRO, we don’t feel that we are cognizant of all the “rules of the rules” and that 99 + percent of WGA members are in the same fog. A member probably doesn’t know that they can raise a point of order, etc. We are not sure if we support keeping RRO or eliminating it in the bylaws, we do agree with Jim and Linda that some clear guidelines for running and participating in meetings and some training would be valuable.
Big Jim, thanks for the explanation and clarification. Our official katste registration lists Steve and Kathy and we always assumed correctly that we had a just one vote for elections and member meetings, etc. which aligns with your explanation. Not many members are weighing in on the bylaw improvements, so we appreciate that a Board member (although not in that official capacity) addressed our question with a good explanation. Thanks!
The proposed bylaw changes clean up the ambiguous and wordy language without making significant changes to how the WGA actually operates. Nice job, Board Members!
One thing the bylaws don’t seem to directly address is a clear definition of what or who constitutes Memberhip. Maybe we missed it!!! Although the bylaws state “any individual” who registers, etc, does that mean a member is defined as one team (e.g. katste) or are both Kathy and Steve of katste officially counted as two members?
During Board elections it is always clearly defined as one vote per team. During annual member meetings and other advisory or less formal input scenarios, for quorum and vote purposes, is it one per team or is it everyone who is in attendance? Does a membership quorum at the annual membership meeting constitute 15 teams or fifteen members of teams? If one has more than one geocaching.com account, is it possible for that person to have more than one WGA membership?
Although this isn’t of earth-shattering importance to us nor anyone else that we know of, we think the “team” as one vote official membership is implied, but seeing that we are updating the bylaws, it would be valuable for inserting some language in the Membership section clearing addressing what constitutes official membership for business purposes…caching team or every individual on a team.
Example:
“Membership is defined as one duly registered caching TEAM for official WGA business and member quorum and voting. All members of an officially registered Team are considered WGA members for all other purposes and activities.”
Thanks for asking for input and your hard work in updating the bylaws. We have some experience in that sort of thing and we know it is tedious work. If you feel we are just nitpicking of if you feel our comments are a non-issue, we are not offended if you feel the bylaws already cover this.
katste
If the Board decides to go for the three year term, Lacknothing’s plan for accomplishing the switchover in a timely and fair manner works well (accomplished by 2024). This would be the minimum time period needed as, ethically, the current Board cannot just adjust their own terms of office.
As an option, instead of making the three year vs two year terms during the adjustment a popularity contest, maybe the Board could consider allowing separate elections for those three and two year terms for the switchover period, and then, per Marie’s plan, every member would be on the three year schedule in 2024. Maybe that would work!!!
We also like Jim and Linda’s idea in some form to ensure each quadrant of the state has a minimum of one member on the Board. We selfishly loved it when our area, Northeast quadrant had at one time(we think) five, Board members, but admittedly that underrepresented other areas.
We also hope the Board would want to address the issue and make a decision and finalized plan in the October meeting, so it can be implemented for the 2022 election.
We, at first glance, favor the three year terms for the simple reason that that turning over so many Board members every two years seems inefficient, destroys continuity and begets begging for candidates sometimes.
That being said, the Board should also specifically poll former Board members for their opinions on whether a longer three year term vs two years is feasible and doable. Would they have served if expected to serve three years(after all they are volunteers) and does the present system of two years interfere with long term planning, committee continuity, etc. They would provide the most valuable info to help make the decision.
One suggestion for a 2022 anniversary celebration is a WGA mega type -event held if the Covid threat is over, scheduled at a time when it doesn’t infringe on traditional annual events sponsored by WGA or other groups or individuals (e.g. winter solstice, road rally, West Bend Cache Bash, etc,).
If the Board agrees to study the possibility of a mega-event at the next meeting, members could then be surveyed regarding their interest, feasibility, possible dates etc. before the April meeting in which the Board would then formally decide to go ahead with it or drop the idea.
If the Board agrees to go ahead, that timeline would give the WGA enough lead time for organizing and planning, etc.
We also think the Fox Valley would be a great venue for such an event for many many reasons including a plethora of parks and trails, affordable hotels, camping, eating places, drivability, and the more than a thousand caches already hidden here.
We know this might be seen as a crazy impossible idea so we are not offended if it doesn’t fly.
Thanks,
katste
We like Jim and Linda’s idea to Dawn regarding a catered lunch and we also really like the Board’s decision to supply the grilled fare at the Fall Picnic, although we did not directly benefit, as we did not attend. As members, we don’t feel we, as members, were shortchanged because we didn’t get a gratis brat. It is good for members as fifty people bringing fifty separate brats to grill doesn’t make a lot of sense. The Board can and should make those decisions as they see fit! We trust you to be able to make those small spending decisions without a long and tedious process.
Not to belabor the point, but seeing we already stirred the pot, we might as well add another ingredient to the discussion. If anonymous members asked to specifically pay the bill for all Board members lunch at the annual meeting, or pancake breakfast, etc. would those who are opposed to a WGA designated donor fund or formal stipend or reimbursement accept it as an earmarked donation in appreciation of your service? This would be akin to the volunteer appreciation lunch or picnic that most non-profits have annually.
We appreciate your opinions, feelings and insights on what seems to be a more delicate proposal than we originally thought!
You all raise some very good points! Thank you!
We figured that many past and present Board members would say they wouldn’t want a stipend. Raslas makes a good point about not wanting a stipend for volunteering. We both respect and support you in that decision. We also do not file for stipends in the organizations we belong to. However we believe something should be available for those who want to or need to opt in. No questions asked and no judgements! As Dawn says, It’s her personal decision. However, even if everyone declines, we as an organization, did the right thing by offering.
However, some cachers maybe do not run for the Board because of the financial expense involved in serving, just as some are not geocaching premium members because they need that $39 to live on.
As Dawn has pointed out, Board members are required to attend only one face to face meeting and are not required to stay overnight, so an overnight isn’t expected. However an all day meeting and perhaps, a two to three hour drive each way is pretty demanding.
We checked several state geocaching associations on-line and found that some have no dues, but many have a sliding scale of dues from $0-$20 with a choice of a free, basic or premium membership. There doesn’t seem to be much difference in the benefits for free , basic or premium membership. We also admit that collecting dues involves some monetary, time and logistic costs.
We didn’t find any info in bylaws about whether Board members in other states receive stipends, expenses or meals. Doing so seems to be a decision by their Boards as circumstances warrant.
BigJim raises a good point about our suggested ad hoc committee make-up. Only those not running again should serve on the committee. Past board members would also be appropriate. Having retired Board members looking at it is necessary because they know how much expense and time is involved and know the history of previous discussions. The then current Board would take up the committee recommendations per the usual procedures.
We also agree with Jim and Linda about the research required before any recommendations can be made. The history of past discussion was interesting and new to us since we first joined in 2013.
As an example, if each member of the Board of Directors who attends and works in their official capacity would have available, at his/her discretion, reimbursement or payment for the following each year.
One night hotel night or campsites for the WBCB/WGA Pancake Breakfast or other WGA official event. (maximum $100)
Meal(s) at annual BOD meeting (going rate)
Pancake Breakfast
The cost would be a maximum of maybe $120 per Board member or $1080 per year if all elect to take it.
The WGA had $8500 dollars (rounded off) in our account at the beginning of 2019. It was about $9500 in 2018. It seems we certainly have the financial resources to, at the very least, offer 9 very dedicated and wonderful people a pancake breakfast or a lunch at an all day meeting or after working a full day at the WBCB or other official event. It looks like we could easily afford it. If the Board feels that the WGA doesn’t have the financial resources, then either dues or a dedicated donation sub-fund could cover it. <b></b><i></i><u></u>
When joining the WGA in 2013, we just assumed that Board Members were offered some sort of cost sharing so we never asked anyone. This past year, in casual chatting, we were surprised to learn that our assumption was wrong.
As for sub sandwiches, give Steve a choice of a free $60 meal at Vince Lombardi’s Steakhouse or a $4 sub at Subway and it is a no-brainer……..Subway all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!! Unless of course, there is a McDonalds or a Burger King around.!!!!
We usually read through every log for a cache we try to find either before we hunt for it or after. Invariably, we see a lot of caches that only say “Found it.” or”TFTC” or “out with so and so grabbing 2000 caches today” or our personal irritant, “found this one 200 years ago and forgot to log.” We have been guilty of some of those as well. Maybe, some CO’s and cachers find our logs too short, too long, too silly or too irritating. The quality of our logs definitely goes down as we increase the number of caches we get in a day.
Although we are not hiders yet, we believe the CO who did all the hard work deserves better and are attempting to reflect that in our more recent logs. Looking back at the old old logs when caching began is pure joy as cachers then didn’t care so much about numbers, but about experiences, and had lively logs with back and forth bantering.
That being said, the first rule of caching seems to be that there are no rules or mores. To each his/her own!
-
AuthorPosts
