For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion:
A motion to rent a Post Office box
Moved by:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion:
A motion to rent a Post Office box
Moved by:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
- The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office
box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one.
This looks reasonable enough. Some copy-editing below:
"Resolved, that:
1. The Corporation shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016;
2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting said Post Office box for a one-year period; and
3. Two keys shall be ordered for said Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one."
Kirill
One substantive change, one stylistic change.
Stylistic: unless DC has some weird operation of law for its corporate meetings, the "BE IT RESOLVED" and such language is extraneous.
Substantive: I'd suggest we change "shall rent" in paragraph 1 to "is authorized to rent" for the simple purpose that if we ever are unable or unwilling to pay for the PO Box any longer, we can simply stop doing so without being in breach of the resolution and having to call a meeting to change it. (the change is not necessary for paragraph 3 as it is implicit in the renting of the box, and there's no reason not to have two keys).
-Dan On May 10, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote: For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion:
A motion to rent a Post Office box
Moved by:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
- The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office
box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one.
This looks reasonable enough. Some copy-editing below:
"Resolved, that:
- The Corporation shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office
box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016;
- The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of
renting said Post Office box for a one-year period; and
- Two keys shall be ordered for said Post Office box, with the
Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one."
Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
James Hare wrote:
For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion:
A motion to rent a Post Office box
Moved by:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
- The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office
box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one.
This seems way too specific for any type of Board to be passing. Wouldn't it typically be a simple resolution authorizing the Secretary (or whoever) to rent a box as necessary? Specifying to the level of what size box and where it must be located seems extreme and unnecessary.
MZMcBride
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This seems way too specific for any type of Board to be passing. Wouldn't it typically be a simple resolution authorizing the Secretary (or whoever) to rent a box as necessary? Specifying to the level of what size box and where it must be located seems extreme and unnecessary.
I agree that it's not strictly necessary; but I don't think it really hurts anything to be more specific either -- at least at this early stage.
Plus, given the present lack of funds, it's quite reasonable for the board to keep a tight grip on spending. ;-)
Kirill
On 05/10/2011 07:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Plus, given the present lack of funds, it's quite reasonable for the board to keep a tight grip on spending. ;-)
That's done by the limit on expenditures to 96USD. I'm not sure why the size of the box is relevant.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Luke Faraone luke@faraone.cc wrote:
On 05/10/2011 07:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Plus, given the present lack of funds, it's quite reasonable for the
board
to keep a tight grip on spending. ;-)
That's done by the limit on expenditures to 96USD. I'm not sure why the size of the box is relevant.
True.
(Although, given that the $96 amount is tied to that particular box size, I'm not sure what we'd really gain by deliberately omitting it; it's a bit like the proverbial Ford Model T bit about getting any color, as long as it was black.)
Kirill
2011/5/10 Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Luke Faraone luke@faraone.cc wrote:
On 05/10/2011 07:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
Plus, given the present lack of funds, it's quite reasonable for the board to keep a tight grip on spending. ;-)
That's done by the limit on expenditures to 96USD. I'm not sure why the size of the box is relevant.
True. (Although, given that the $96 amount is tied to that particular box size, I'm not sure what we'd really gain by deliberately omitting it; it's a bit like the proverbial Ford Model T bit about getting any color, as long as it was black.) Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money. Conversely, if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question "but how much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun than debating back-office matters.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money. Conversely, if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question "but how much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun than debating back-office matters.
I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too think that this is more specific than you generally want for a resolution.
Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address! The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned, because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and require the resolution to be amended.
What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than, say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".)
Cheers, Kat
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Kat Walsh kat@mindspillage.org wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, James Hare jamesmhare@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money. Conversely, if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question "but how much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun than debating back-office matters.
I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too think that this is more specific than you generally want for a resolution.
Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address! The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned, because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and require the resolution to be amended.
What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than, say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".)
I support this and allowing a little bit of flexibility, such as "a Post Office in the District of Columbia, spending no more than $110".
Cheers, Katie
Cheers, Kat
-- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat@wikimedia.org * Personal: kat@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Not to be rude, but these discussions are exactly why I was hoping you'd start an announce list. I'm interested in your events and major news but not the decision-making. I suspect there are others like me.
On 05/11/2011 10:36 PM, Aude wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Kat Walsh <kat@mindspillage.org mailto:kat@mindspillage.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, James Hare <jamesmhare@gmail.com <mailto:jamesmhare@gmail.com>> wrote: > I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the > resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a > PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the > PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money. Conversely, > if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the > Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question "but how > much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the > Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being > explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So > while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying > to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By > debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our > in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun > than debating back-office matters. I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too think that this is more specific than you generally want for a resolution. Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address! The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned, because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and require the resolution to be amended. What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than, say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".)I support this and allowing a little bit of flexibility, such as "a Post Office in the District of Columbia, spending no more than $110".
Cheers, Katie
Cheers, Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat@wikimedia.org <mailto:kat@wikimedia.org> * Personal: kat@mindspillage.org <mailto:kat@mindspillage.org> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
I agree with Gavin.
While I appreciate the transparency I also think a specific list would be grand for those specifically interested in these matters.
I do appreciate all the hard effort!
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On May 11, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Gavin Baker gavin@gavinbaker.com wrote:
Not to be rude, but these discussions are exactly why I was hoping you'd start an announce list. I'm interested in your events and major news but not the decision-making. I suspect there are others like me.
On 05/11/2011 10:36 PM, Aude wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Kat Walsh <kat@mindspillage.org mailto:kat@mindspillage.org> wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, James Hare <jamesmhare@gmail.com mailto:jamesmhare@gmail.com> wrote:
I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money.
Conversely,
if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question
"but how
much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun than debating back-office matters.
I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too think that this is more specific than you generally want for a resolution.
Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address! The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned, because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and require the resolution to be amended.
What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than, say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".)
I support this and allowing a little bit of flexibility, such as "a Post Office in the District of Columbia, spending no more than $110".
Cheers, Katie
Cheers, Kat
-- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat@wikimedia.org mailto:kat@wikimedia.org * Personal: kat@mindspillage.org mailto:kat@mindspillage.org http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:46 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
James Hare wrote:
For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion:
A motion to rent a Post Office box
Moved by:
BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
- The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office
box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one.
This seems way too specific for any type of Board to be passing. Wouldn't it typically be a simple resolution authorizing the Secretary (or whoever) to rent a box as necessary? Specifying to the level of what size box and where it must be located seems extreme and unnecessary.
MZMcBride
The resolution has so much detail because I did the homework and figured out what was available and how much it cost. That way, once the resolution was passed, I would schlep over to Friendship Post Office and get the box and we wouldn't have to bother with figuring out what we were going to do afterward. With a vague resolution, we would've had to spend more time than was necessary. That being said, it shouldn't take a resolution to do this -- it's a simple matter of conducting business, but the bylaws offer no room for discretionary spending on the Treasurer's behalf nor have we hashed out how that is going to work exactly. (As the treasurer, I am obligated to prepare a budget but without knowing all our needs or all our sources of revenue I can't proceed).
Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc
wikimedia-dc@lists.wikimedia.org