Rewrite of Const./By-laws - Benevolence

[dennysfishroom]

By-laws Article V. We have had some discussion on this provision in the By-laws on the Forum already. Since this area has been questioned, the first decision involves an amendment to eliminate this Article from the By-laws. If this amendment passes, then no further discussion is required. If it does not pass, the language of this article needs to be clarified to provide a clearer understanding of exactly what our intention is, and exactly how we are going to calculate the amount of any charitable contributions. This is only needed as far as the formulas needed to calculate any contributions. I haven't heard of any uncertainty as far as the decision making process over who gets the contribution, or how it is decided. Please limit any posts in this thread to the topic of Benevolence.

[etheonut]

Denny,

For ease of discussion, could you post a copy of the by-law? This should help stream line the discussion.

Kevin

[dennysfishroom]

I had thought that I did, although I can't tell you where right off the top. There is one copy posted that should be the original. I think the one I think I posted had the "Inc." taken out, as well as a few typo mistakes corrected. Let me know if we don't find it, and I can try again. I think I've got a copy somewhere in my files. Denny

[mewickham]

Here's the text as it currently exists:

ARTICLE V- Benevolence Fund

Section 1- The Society shall set up a fund with the proceeds to benefit charitable organizations, with a preference for those that deal with fishes or conservation.

Section 2- The fund shall consist of 10% of all monies raised by the society paid out on a once yearly basis.

Section 3- An operating budget of $500 must always be maintained for the Society before such funds are paid out.

Section 4- Disbursement of funds shall be at the discretion of the board of directors, with the final approval by the general membership.

[etheonut]

Upon reading this, I don't think our previous discussion about keeping it or getting rid of it is warranted and here is why:

Section 3 says that an operating budget of $500 must be maintained before this money is paid out, so if paying out the money would result in our budget dropping below $500, it wouldn't happen.

Section 4 says disbursement of the fund shall be at the discretion of the board of directors with final approval by the general membership. Well, this year I would vote that we not disburse that fund and simply let it accumulate until next year. This will allow us to keep that money and use it for desperately needed equipment.

I also think interpreting section 4 in this manner is a slightly risky thing to do, but if we are clear in our purpose and still make this years and next years donations as directed (in January 2011), then it shouldn't set a bad precedent.

I am putting this forward as a compromise between the two sides of the coin. I honestly believe that the benevolence clause will be a defining clause of our organization, but I also believe that trying to function for another year without necessary equipment will dearly hurt the club.

Kevin

[dennysfishroom]

Kevin,

Don't take me wrong when I show opposition to the Benevolence Fund. I am a firm believer in benevolence and charity, but my opposition to what's in the By-laws has to do more with the "will" than with a "may". I guess I have more faith that people are charitable without having it be legislated. And like I said before, the decision to remove this provision will only occur if that is the will of the majority of our members. If we use the argument that it was originally voted for in our By-laws, that same argument could be used to justify not allowing any amendments, since we voted to accept the original By-laws when we started. As treasurer, even if we vote to retain the Benevolent Fund, we have to reword the clause, because there are several valid ways to interpret what we have now.

BTW - did you find the copy of the Constitution and Bt-laws? It's the first postings by Sundance in Club Business - Rewrite of Constitution and By-laws.

Denny

[mewickham]

Kevin,

At minimum, I still believe that we need to clarify the language. The way it stands there is possibility that it could slow or prevent us from obtaining a projector and PA system. I am really worried about this. Just yesterday, Michael was telling me of a livebearer guy who may be coming to speak in November. He said that this guy is _driving_ from Colorado to give the talk. It would be great to have this speaker talk to us, but how's he going to feel when we show his presentation on a little TV?

So here's another possible compromise. I noticed that HAAS has something they call "Community Service League." It's totally voluntary. They give people a chance to donate food to food drives, donate money upon event registrations, donate shares of auction proceeds, click Paypal donation buttons, etc., instead of hard-coding benevolence into their constitution. They do pretty well with it. I bet we'd do better with something like that. If asked to donate a few bucks out of my own pocket, I'm very likely to say yes. If asked to take it out of the club's treasury-- especially when we yet have no projector-- I'm not only likely to say no, I'm likely to say heck no. So maybe we should look at removing the Benevolence article and possibly replacing it with a charitable committee.

[sumpnfishy]

Denny, I agree with you that PEOPLE are benevolent without being legislated. Organizations are NOT. You will see people give tons of time and money to an organization they are part of but the moment the idea to support an organization outside itself comes up they will vote it down in a heartbeat.
Michael

[mewickham]

Denny, I agree with you that PEOPLE are benevolent without being legislated. Organizations are NOT. You will see people give tons of time and money to an organization they are part of but the moment the idea to support an organization outside itself comes up they will vote it down in a heartbeat.
Michael

That's because charity is a personal thing. People like to choose the charity they give to, not have it legislated. It's not charity when it's forced upon a person. It's a tax. A further problem to this issue is that no one has ever specified what our society's charity would be. We are basically being asked to give blindly, with no emotional connection.

[etheonut]

In regards to "who" gets the money. It states that the disbursement of funds is decided by the board of directors with final approval by the generally membership. So, who gets the money could change from year to year, and the general membership gets the final say on where that money goes. This puts the responsibility of finding a suitable charity in the hands of the officers, but ultimately puts the power to choose in the hands of the members.

I can assure you, as one of the writers of these bylaws, that some things were left intentionally vague so that the society would have the opportunity to define them as it grew. We were instructed as writers in fact to not pin the club down in many areas because it was so young. It is intentionally the way it is so that it may grow with the organization.

In this regard, I am excited to see changes proposed to the document. It does not excite me to see one of the those changes to be the total removal of one of the bylaws. To me, that seems contrary to the purpose that we as writers were given.

By the way, my proposal in no way slows down our ability to get a projector.

I am sorry that you see the benevolence clause as a tax. It was meant as a way for the founding group of people to set the theme of charity into our organization. As I think about it, I see no conflict between what we have written in our bylaws and what the HAAS club is doing, except that we have set a goal for our charitable donations at 10% of the societies total cash, and we have set an expectation that the club take care of itself before being charitable. Please also note that there is nothing in the bylaw (again intentionally vague) that requires this to be a cash donation. As you have already pointed out Mike, the club as a whole has been very generous this year in donating its time to other organizations. I would be more than happy for a dollar value to placed on that time donated.

Just a few rambling thoughts,

Kevin

[dennysfishroom]

Without getting off the topic of whether we should have a Benevolence Fund, my other concern was the mechanics of figuring out "how" much we are to give. Denny

[etheonut]

That is something that needs to be clarified. I see at least 2 ways that this could be interpreted.

1. 10% of the total of the balances of the club's accounts on December 31st or January 1st. This interpretation could easily result in a very bad situation. If the club had $1500 on Jan 1st of 2011, the would pay out $150. Then lets say the club has a bad year. The data projector breaks, the library collection gets destroyed when Michael floods his fishroom AGAIN, and we lose money on all of our fundraisers. On January 1st, 2012 our balance is $510, and now have to pay out $51. In essence our charitable contributions would be hurting us. Much like Mike is worrying about it doing right now.

2. 10% of our total monies earned that year by the club as reported by the Secretary at the January meeting of the following year. This would make our charitable donations be relative to the strength of the club itself. So, if we have an ending balance of $1500 on Jan 1st of 2011, it won't matter. What will matter is how much money we raised in 2010. If we raised $50, then we pay out $5. If we raise $1000, then we pay out $100.

It has been a long time since Corey, Michael and I discussed these things over pizza, but as I write this I seem to remember that number 2 is what we actually intended. That is the reason for the language "all monies raised by the society." Obviously we could have done a better job of writing some of these bylaws, but we were working for free at the time and I do believe there were some fermented beverages involved. I personally blame Kenna for not catching this sooner. She is the future lawyer amongst us after all.

Oh, and I didn't think the topic was one of should we or shouldn't we have a fund. I thought the topic was, "lets discuss this fund and decide if changes were necessary, one of those changes being removal."

Kevin

[mewickham]

In regards to "who" gets the money. It states that the disbursement of funds is decided by the board of directors with final approval by the generally membership.

I realize that. What I was trying to say, but obviously didn't word well enough, was that if the first year's cause was specified beforehand, it might let people form an emotional attachment to it. It might gain more votes for your side of the argument. I was being benevolent and trying to help your cause.

So could someone please give us some possible examples of where such monies might go? I have not, so far, heard one example.

[etheonut]

It would vary of course from year to year depending on the board of directors. I would hope that the board of directors would turn to the general populace for suggestions. So, Mike, where would you like to see the money go?

All joking aside, there are some obvious choices. The Nature Conservancy is one of my favorites. They do a great deal for all wildlife. The ACA has their scholarship/research fund and I wouldn't have a problem making a donation to them to go directly to that fund. The Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission would be a local group that we could be a worthy destination for our money. The Gerald C. Corcoran Education Grant is sponsored by NANFA (North American Native Fish Association) and I would have no problem making a donation to NANFA that is specifically added to that grant for one year. In regards to the Gerald C. Corcoran and ACA donations, the club has direct ties to both organizations and could insure that the money goes directly to the source intended.

I hope this list is of satisfactory length and diversity.


Kevin

[mewickham]

Of that group of listings, the Gerald C. Corcoran Education Grant would be my choice. Jerry Corcoran was a very good friend of mine.

[dennysfishroom]

The original question was did we want to keep that Fund in our By-laws. For me it would be helpful if we could run a poll to see if the club members still support this program? If they don't, any discussion of where the money would go is premature. If the majority of our club members do support this Fund, then we can focus on how we're going to administer it effectively and correctly. Those are 2 separate propositions. Let's find out what we should be focusing on. Denny

[etheonut]

I don't believe discussing details about how the fund works is premature at all. Mike asked a specific question to clarify how the fund would work. I answered that question to the best of my ability. We shouldn't be voting on if we are going to keep or remove a bylaw if we haven't even clarified how the bylaw works. So, lets continue to clarify or decide how this benevolence fund will work. Once we have decided how it should be implemented and everyone is informed, then we can talk about voting to either modify it to be more clear or remove it, whichever is deemed necessary.

Kevin

[sumpnfishy]

I do not think it wise to even be discussing total removal. Bylaws are not meant to be so fluid that an entire section that was written into the bylaws should be removed less than two years later. If we need to adjust and clarify that is fine, but absolute removal in my mind makes a mockery of what bylaws are about to start with.
Michael

[dennysfishroom]

I would think that there's more chance for revision during the first couple years. You construct the By-laws before anything has happened in the club. Then you "test drive" them for some period of time, and find out what works and what doesn't. Then you make adjustments as needed. While I would like to remove the provision, I'm not trying to ram it down anyone's throat if the majority of the members want to keep it in. I'm trying to get a sense as to the what the majority does want, then we know what we're trying to discuss (eliminate or modify). If the amendment is presented and seconded, we are going to vote on it. Let's find out what people want. Denny

[mewickham]

Bylaws are not meant to be so fluid that an entire section that was written into the bylaws should be removed less than two years later. If we need to adjust and clarify that is fine, but absolute removal in my mind makes a mockery of what bylaws are about to start with.

Actually, Michael, I think the constitution is more written in stone than the bylaws, but even the club constitution allows amendment of itself. I agree with Denny that a club's bylaws are likely to be most fluid in a club's infant years, when it is still trying to lose baby fat and grow into its britches.

My inclination is to amend to remove the benevolence article. Right now, especially as written, it can't do anything but hurt our club by taking much needed funds from us. But I see that Michael and Kevin both feel very personally about it, and their hearts are in the right place. Looking at the HAAS constitution and bylaws today, I see that it's almost word for word the same as our constitution and bylaws, except for the benevolence article. So I see why they feel such a personal stake in it. It's the only personal touch they put on the document. That article is their baby.

I honor them and their courage for starting this club out in the middle of nowhere, with hardly an aquarium in site. It took guts and dedication. So I'm still open to hearing possible compromise language out of respect for those two. (And forgive me if I leave out anyone else who was a founder of which I am unaware.) Michael and Kevin, how about submitting some changed language for us to consider? For me, I need the language to guarantee that the fund won't pay out until the club has a projector to use for guest lecturers, and a PA system to use for auctions (in addition to the minimum bank balance clause). I think that's fair. I can't vote to keep the article otherwise. And that doesn't mean I'd be unwilling to reinstate it after we have those two items.