Post edited 4:03 pm - February 24, 2011 by Richard Todd Chinnock
Greetings to our tribe of the Common Wo~Man,
(William-This was a good opener to help us get grounded, but we need more specificity.)
(John- I suggest that somewhere on this thread you post a link to your original proposal)
I am in full agreement with these main principles of the organizational proposal for Common Good Finance.
1. Top down, bottom up flows of responsibility. Circle Members, Reps, Conveners, Board Members, ExD/Peon in Chief etc…
2. Invitation Principle. Invitation sent to all FM (some areas of contention, but not at this current moment)
3. Wholistic embodiment of foundational structure for Common Good Communities.
Please watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....g_NOWWdFrw
Now that I've stated my opinion and provided it's requisite artsy fartsy flare lets provide some context.
It appears to me that what we are actually undertaking is the creation of the first Member's Association while at the same time activating support for CGF in relation to our "Campaign for a Common Good Economy" which is mostly about getting the bank chartered. In addition, after chartering the main function of CGF as I understand it will be to safeguard all the intellectual property of CGB. Seeing as CGF is composed of staff and the founding membership it makes sense that it could be considered a Member's Association of the whole aka Circulo Numero Uno. This means that how we organize the ground up movement of Common Wo~Men into decision making positions within CGF will need to account for diverse geographical locations and/or conceptual positions.
Currently, the hotbeds of activity are the greater Berkshire area and the greater Pioneer Valley. Both are in Massachusetts. However, we should not plan as though that will remain as such for too long. In addition we ought to remember that it takes 50 people, 5 businesses, and 1 non profit in any unifying geographical location to qualify to be recognized as a branch of CGB. This realistically means that once certain groups have grown in size within these hotbed areas they will create splinter CGBs of folks who felt they were getting outvoted too often and so have rallied to create their own branch to fund their project for the Common Good. This should be encouraged in my mind as the data shows that consensus has a better chance in smaller groups. Plus, it will be a venue for those whose goal is to preserve specific cultural heritages or have focused expertise with other minority issues.
I caution that we not go too wild thinking that all circles we might have in mind belong as a part of CGF proper. A major area that we need to contend with is staff. Who are they? What do they do? How do we economically recognize their contributions? Take William for example. . .I heard talk about getting him a sum of money (less than 750$) in recognition of his work (whips out official transparency brigade badge). That is a pittance even if all I relate it to is the value he has created in my life and I'm not even sure that he got it anyway!
Where is the organizational structure as it stands? William, seated in relative comfort, chained to a desk and deigning from on low how its gonna go. With his homies on the board watching his back with real power to grab him by the ear and say "bad idea!" This was perfect until our first communities have built themselves into the 50+ member range.
As far as I know the rest of the staff are on contract with an hourly wage paid from an entitlement of 60% of donations that they are responsible for garnering. There most likely has been exceptions to this rule, but I do not know the details. I personally believe in the interest of transparency, all contracts should be viewable by founding members.
To my mind, the major point that William shared with those of us at the retreat about the historical development of CGB, was that last year a consulting firm was paid to analyze the organization. The consulting firm came back with 3 major suggestions.
1. Get an active board. Board members who are founding members themselves and conduct day to day operations for CGF.
2. Re brand everything under Common Good. Drop S2BE.
3. Run a concentrated campaign in the geographical locations of highest interest.
Number 2 is done. Number 3 is rollin' along! Number 1 is all that's left to do to provide a solid foundation for the organization.
Getting to understand the board was one of my main reasons for coming out to the retreat. I gather it was also a pivotal point for some of those who also attended the retreat. They wanted to get to know who and what they had invested in or were considering investing in. (I use the word invest here to denote time, donations, pledges etc.) Only three members showed up counting William. Of the two, one wasn't able to commit to the entire weekend and while he showed a deep mind he also negated himself on some levels during my interactions with him. I kept feeling that there was more available with him, but that he did not feel complete confidence in his ability to make decisions for a project of this magnitude. The other, whom I had the pleasure of spending considerable small group time with, began the weekend thinking that we needed to take 15 years before we ever left the confines of western mass. My jaw literally dropped open in amazement and I hope I did not embarrass him or myself for that matter. Quite clearly we do not have 15 years to putz around on our, "nice nice, lets all have enough!" program.
That being said, I most sincerely hope that those two honorable gentlemen will recognize their unique place and respect the opportunity the universe (or whatever you like) is providing them. The same goes to all other members of the board. The time for concentrated commitment is now. The holding pattern will no longer serve the Common Good.
This was why I chose to participate in the Board Committee group. All board members must be actively engaged in work for the Common Good Community. This was why our group suggested that we use the proxy concept to determine who the most trusted members of our community were and then to task them with "Activating/Diversifying the Board." We admitted to ourselves that it could fail and that maybe no definite individuals could be said to be "most trusted". However, we were able to find definite individuals. It was my sense that the membership felt as though they did something important to move forward. I agree with that sentiment.
It is my opinion that this item must be completed before we have an official position on organizational structure. The following is my theoretical approach to implementing Circle Organizing.
The nominating committee, hereby referred to as N.C., should be tasked with interviewing the current board and determining who stays, who goes. Then William should issue his invitation to join the board circle to the membership. William may spell out his invitation in anyway he sees fit (as advised by the N.C.), including such options as areas of expertise required, gender and racial diversity requirements etc. The thing I would most like to see at this point is diversity of actions creating value. We can handle the more challenging issues of diversity once we have a broad enough base.
William and the N.C. then interview all respondents. William and the board accept those that seem appropriate. Have full reports filed by each member of the N.C. accounting for their part in the process. Why they decided as they did. Where did they disagree with what ended up happening. What they were pleased with and the reason. Why it is they arrived at consensus with the results ect. Have them spend 5-10 minutes in meeting to relate their experience.
If there were any serious problems one of the members of the N.C. should call for a confidence, no confidence vote if two will second and third, the vote is carried out. One week's time should then be given for further discussion. If a no confidence vote is arrived at after the discussion period, the N.C. will file the recommendations presented them by the membership. Adaptions will be decided upon by William and the board with oversight by the N.C. Re-present until we have a confidence vote.
One last article on the Board Circle. The Peon in Chief (ExecutiveDirector) ought to be a meritocratic position. Meaning that only those who have spent considerable amount of time within the Common Good Community providing value shall be considered and selected by the board for nomination. The nominees accomplishments in the community are cataloged and sent out with an endorsement by the nominees proxy. Ample discussion and then the founding membership votes on the nominees.
William…Peon in Chief, Uber Merit Boyscout, Merit till he dies…Spademan! HooRah! Seriously though. This should be considered.
Once we have a board there is confidence in and, we can approach the circle organization proposal in relation to CGF. As Nigel points out, there will need to be an analysis of current bylaws and changes made as necessary to coincide with the organizational principles we intend to manifest.
The role of CGF is to properly represent/protect CGB intellectual property to/from the public/regulators and also to represent the Member's Associations to CGB and regulators (I see it as a needed addition to the role of Division Advisor that will emerge from the bank proxy process). It is tasked in the greater manifested framework of the CGE to wield the power of banishment. We must keep this in mind as we move forward to make sure this power is used effectively and prudently.
With our new Board Circle and Peon in Chief process we have the hierarchy we need to mesh with society and law as it stands currently. Then the board can begin implementing a process to acquire conveners. The Conveners should be contracted to CGF and accept fair share of the staff compensation budget. These may include paid experts from outside the organization if we accept that their circle has a limited lifespan convened only to accomplish a task that none of our members were capable of accomplishing and has proper oversight. Depending on the size of the task being undertaken each convener will be allowed staff to suit the needs of their circle. Staff will be chosen from current membership whenever possible. All value created, but not recognized economically will be accounted for payment soon after bank chartering. If possible, I would like to see a better path towards establishing stock ownership through work. Still requiring a minimum amount of stock to be bought conventionally is acceptable. Perhaps a 3-1 ratio between conventional and work?
There are six first circles that ring around the center circle. The circles to be convened are
- Administration/Treasury/Law
- I.T. (bank)/I.T. (general)/Research and Development
- Campaign/Branding/Politics
- Education/Orientation/Business
- Members Association/Transparency/Bank
- Mediation/Counseling/H.R.
Granted, at this time we are not in a place to flesh all of this out. But we will be, oh yes, we will be…moving on.
Rick's 3 tracks, which provided the foundation for the above, have specified for us our list of importance.
- Campaign- Can't have community if no one knows about it!
- Education/Orientation- Can't create culture if no one knows how!
- Community/Members Association- Won't get transparency or sovereignty without being in the mix!
We also need to consider the vast importance of having proper I.T. tools to accomplish what we are after.
There! Do those of you who attended the retreat who voted for Ms. Meier's Stalinist, work camp, food program feel confident in where such theories as Circle Organizing are leading us?
Next time…"Bubble ups!"….Umm? Excuse you….."No honestly, I meant that in an exteremly serious manner."
print page
Team members may be volunteers, paid staff, consultants, or a mix, depending on the organization. Typically, committees and subcommittees are convened by someone in the parent committee, to take on a specific aspect of the parent’s overall mission.
Login 
Register 
Search 
Home
Comment on this Subject 
Quote and Reply 
Print this Comment 
)
Topic RSS 
