[Imc] Defining "Member" for Structure Document

[Mike Lehman]

Paul,
OK, then let's examine your proposal in light of your concern that it
involve as little bureaucracy as possible, at least from my point of
view, which is what is contained in the following.

> 1. Volunteering time and/or expertise to IMC events or projects.
Do we ask for more time (exactly how much?) from those who can afford
only $10 than from someone who could afford $30 of the standard $50
dues? If someone has a skill that is particularly prized in the "real"
world, do they only have to work an hour versus someone with limited
skills maybe being asked to work 10 hours whose labor value outside the
IMC might be rewarded at best at minimum wage? What work would be
required? Something that was a shitty job that no one else has wanted to
do yet? Is this work what they want to do or is it something that the
IMC needs? And doesn't this undermine the whole spirit of voluntarianism
that is at the root of the IMC project? If I can pay the $50, why should
anyone expect anything out of me beyond $$? And if I contribute work
this year, am I expected to contribute the same or a different amount of
work next year and who decides when and how this work is to be
performed? And how do we keep books on all this?

> 2. Making production equipment available to the IMC membership, events, and projects, by donation or on loan.
Once again, how do we set a value on what someone chooses to contribute?
Maybe we should just allow these sort of memberships from someone who
has something we specifically need? And what's the point of taking a
contribution of something that we do NOT need (since people are always
leaving random junk at the IMC that we have to figure out how to get rid
of already)? And once again, this undermines the already mentioned
spirit of voluntarianism, along with presenting the problems already
mentioned in #1 about the need for another such contribution next year,
etc.

> 3. Paying annual dues.
Simple and needs little in the way of extra decision-making. Most people
can afford this. Those that cannot have a very simple and short process
to go through if they can't -- they simply ask the Finance group for
some or all of the membership fee to be waived.

I think that there may be some theory that we should be able to make
money, financial considerations, and involvement with exchange value go
away at the IMC involved with this proposal. And that is a wonderful
sentiment. But it also obscures the harsh reality that it takes money to
keep the doors of the IMC open. In fact, we are facing what will become
a rapidly growing series of events in the next six months that involve
MONEY, whether we like it or not, that may result in the doors of the
IMC closing, along with the loss of most of our investment, in both
money and sweat equity, in the present space if we fail to raise the
money needed to buy the building and erase the ongoing deficit?

If the problem is lack of money on the part of anyone desiring to be a
member or renew their membership, I believe we already have a policy
that states explicitly that money is NOT a barrier to IMC membership
(which I neglected to mention is in the existing membership policy),
along with a simple mechanism to invoke this policy in whole or in part
in terms of the yearly IMC dues.

The reality is that we need these membership dollars as part of the even
larger financial needs of the IMC at this moment. And we should prefer
that membership dues come in cash in any case except those of finacial
need. Maybe people don't always like to look at the financial value
implicit in IMC membership, but it gives access to a wide variety of
resources of great value, even at the heady-sounding $50 a year.
Compared to what you get for your average rent payment, it is a
particularly good value for a home away from home, as it is for many
people.

I think that Paul's proposal presents a can of worms in terms of how it
would be implemented, especially in contrast to the present system of
not letting finacial problems stand in the way of anyone's membership.
The present policy enjoyed widespread support when it was adopted and it
has served us well. If it has been too obscure for some, I would support
incorporating it into the Structure document, although I don't
personally feel that it not being in there is really much of an issue.

On another tack, I think that we should be cautious in using the
membership meeting as a venue for presenting new policies or proposals
being made outside of the already existing decisonmaking structure at
the IMC, which provides numerous, weekly opportunities to build
consensus for policies and proposals like this. The membership meeting
was originally designed to review the existing structure document and
empower the structures to manage the day-to-day business of the IMC.

This proposal would have been more properly introduced at a Finance
meeting. There is still time to do that, although there may not be time
before the membership meeting to fully engage our newly adopted Conflict
Resolution policy if Paul finds that his proposal doesn't find favor
among others at the Finance and Steering group levels. However, if the
proposal meets with difficulties, this might be some indication that
consensus on it will be lacking at the membership meeting level in any
case, in which case introducing a proposal that is already known to lack
the possibility of consensus would probably be counter-productive.

Mike Lehman

Paul Kotheimer wrote:
> 
> hi all
> 
> it seems to me that a definition of "Member" needs to be in the Structure
> Document.  i'm also of the mind that a procedure for the formation of new
> working groups needs to be in the Structure Document--but i'm not up to
> the task of drafting a text on that topic.
> 
> having never seen another definition of a UCIMC member, i continue to
> propose the one i propose, and i welcome input.
> 
> paulkotheimer:)
> 
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Mike Lehman wrote:
> 
> > While it may not be in the Structure document, we do have a definition
> > of member in a seperate document about membership. As I remember,
> > membership requires dues of $50 a year or an appeal to pay a lesser
> > amount (down to $0) by appeal to the Finance group based on finacial
> > need. We have handled several of these requests in the past.
> >
> > I think it would be simpler to locate this document and incorporate it
> > into the Structure document if Paul feels that it really needs to be in
> > there, instead of in a seperate document. I am also uncertain as to how
> > this current definition of membership is deficient or fails to achieve
> > the same ends as Paul's proposal. Perhaps he wasn't aware of it.
> > Mike Lehman
> >
> > Paul Kotheimer wrote:
> > >
> > > hi neighbors,
> > >
> > > Ellen K. tells me that the membership meeting is where we discuss the
> > > Structure document.  The Structure document doesn't yet include a
> > > definition of a member.
> > >
> > > Here's the definition i'm proposing.  You may notice that it puts exactly
> > > zero beurocratic hurdles between an individual's desire to become a member
> > > and that individual's actually being a member.  I think this design is
> > > desirable.  You may disagree.
> > >
> > > If you'd like a paper copy of this definition, i've hung a clip, with 30+
> > > copies of this text inside the clip, on the bulletin board in the IMC in
> > > the space marked "Structure" (i.e. directly on the right-hand side as you
> > > face the bathroom door.)  please try to leave this stack of papers in that
> > > same spot, so that i can pass out these copies at the membership meeting.
> > >
> > > Please feel free to e-mail me with comments between now and October 3d.
> > >
> > > paulkotheimer:)
> > >
> > > here's that text:
> > > #################################################################
> > > DEFINITION OF "MEMBERSHIP" FOR THE IMC STRUCTURE DOCUMENT
> > >                 --first draft, submitted to membership meeting 10/3/2002
> > >
> > > 1.A] A "Member" is an individual who participates in the work of the UCIMC
> > > in at least one of the following ways:
> > >
> > >         * 1. Volunteering time and/or expertise to IMC events or projects.
> > >         * 2. Making production equipment available to the IMC membership,
> > > events, and projects, by donation or on loan.
> > >         * 3. Paying annual dues.
> > >
> > > 1.B] Individual membership begins by means of the individual participating
> > > as described above.
> > > 1.C] Individual membership may be revoked only by consensus of all Members
> > > at a plenary membership meeting.
> > >
> > > 2.] A "member organization" is any organization (A.) whose mission has an
> > > affinity with that of the IMC and (B.) which pays an annual fee as
> > > determined by the Steering Committee.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > IMC mailing list
> > IMC at www.ucimc.org
> > http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
> >
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> THE HAND-MADE RECORD LABEL
> www.handmaderecords.com
> 
> c/o the School for Designing a Society
> 409 North Race Street
> Urbana, IL 61801
> 217 384 0299 phone (no fax)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at www.ucimc.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc