DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
COC Reboot
HTML https://cocreboot.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: 2020-11-25 Town Hall
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99--------------------------------------------------
Determining Active Membership
DIR By: rhandom
Date: October 29, 2020, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Laura: I don't have any edits, beyond the discussion about
active members being 3 events in the last 6 months. We do have
some members who don't participate in winter events, but are
quite active in the summer/fall - for any special resolutions
that require voting outside the AGM (which obviously we want to
avoid, but is a possibility), this may preclude those members
from contributing. I'd suggest it be 3 or 4 events in the last
year - this also then allows someone who gets sick/has an injury
to potentially still contribute, especially given that active
events do not include meetings and socials, but actual physical
activities. Just my 2 cents.
Laura: The issue I see is the "we decide whether they're
active". That puts the onus on the Board to defend the decision
for every person, given that there are no requirements to be met
for a self-identifier - unless we never plan to turn anyone away
who self-identifies. Having a clear definition of what is active
will prevent people from thinking we can sway the vote count by
accepting people who agree with us as active, and not allowing
people who self-identify but don't agree with us to not vote.
Not that we would ever do that - but having a policy like that
means it's technically possible. I would say we might be better
off just adding a clause that illness or injury will be allowed
for, and if you're active in the 12 months before your illness
or injury, you would still qualify. There's problems with that
too though...let me know what you both think.
Rhonda: I think we could come up with a list of valid "Active
Member" criteria that we could uphold... something like:
1) Has attended 3+ events in the past six months (our official
"Active Member" definition);
2) Has attended 50+ events overall
3) Has attended 6+ events in the past year
4) Has attended 20+ events in the past three years
Laura:: I think we could debate those (and likely will, hahah!)
but I like this idea. I think we need a list like this to ensure
there's no perception of vote stacking.
#Post#: 107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Determining Active Membership
DIR By: Duane
Date: October 29, 2020, 2:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh I really like that last chart Rhonda (4 variations of
"active"). A system like that definitely helps avoid people
slipping through the cracks. I myself have attended 100+ events
in a single year but have also gone 6 months where I attended
less than 3. I love this!
#Post#: 112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Determining Active Membership
DIR By: rhandom
Date: November 1, 2020, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts from Grant:
Tying voting rights to activity vs money. I wasn't enamoured
with voting being restricted to volunteers and Premiers with a
subscription model hence the amendment to expand voting rights
to regular members. Tying it exclusively to activity is a change
in direction but the only issue that comes to mind is how said
activity is defined. My rationale for not using the websites
definition of active member was that it included the last 6
months. For various reasons someone may be unable to participate
in events for 6 months. I never did anything with the COC over
each winter for many years; someone may have a job that takes
them away for an extended time; or a pregnant lady may be
otherwise occupied; are just a couple of examples. That's why I
looked at "the previous twelve months" as a little more
encompassing. I see you have four definitions proposed which
sort of address the scenario I mention with 6 months. What
occurred to me was what if someone was extremely active for a
year or two, then never participated for several years. They
could have voting rights yet not really be participating any
more. As you get down to #3 and #4 it seems their participation
and vote becomes less relevant. Are they really active when they
did 60 events five years ago and none in the last four years?
Would it be simpler to only define active as x number of events
in the last x months?
Then would any event be included or would some be excluded. By
example for the $3 event fee we excluded meetings and volunteer
events (e.g. maybe maybe meetings, and Mustard Seed yard sales).
How might you define that in the bylaws or would it be simpler
to encompass any/all events.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1