TAC Mission Statement discussion

[nick6930]

I like the idea of using Assistant mostly because of the abreviation. Dave could be the Mag. Ass.. :-)

I would like to be the Ass. to the Ass. of Sanitation. I am already my wifes Ass.. Unfortunately for you all I could go all day with this. Sorry.

[Shacksman]

One benefit of having an organized club is that we could be recognized when doing a rally, like other clubs. Special treatment from campgrounds or cities, donations of door prizes or food as at the bash. An unorganized group just showing up would be unlikely to attract the attention needed to keep the club growing.

[Dave Park]

Another benefit is that with non-profit status comes exemption from taxes - some states have steep taxes for rental accommodation including RV parks, so that could save 20% or more. Also, if the club accepted donations, they would be deductible.

Since one of the aims of TAC is to keep things affordable for members, non-profit status would be a great benefit.

Ragtag volunteers can't claim non-profit status.

[hampstead38]

Dave, you list reminded me of something. Maryland has an unusual political structure where one of the legislative bodies is the "House of Delegates." While I think Board of Janitors has a poetic ring; Board of Delegates seems very neutral.

There is also some expense in forming a 501(c) nonprofit corporation. There's some paperwork involved, articles of incorporation, etc. I agree that nonprofit status has benefits, but there are also costs such as the annual filings. Certainly, the decision to form a nonprofit would render moot the discussion about whether or not TAC should be a club without any structure.

[ibgl6]

I am just a little confused here. But why would you have to have insurance if you fall you go to the doctor and you pay the bill?? If you have a rally make it prepaid to the campground? Please dont beat me up to much but can someone explain this to me???...SAM

[WineStream]

So we've discussed this for a week or so now. And it seems like we're down to a few people who want to keep volleying the discussion. I didn't (yet) bother to go back through all the posts and try to determine a consensus, but how do we bring this to a close? Do we vote via Airforums? Will the thread just be closed at a certain date? Will we just wait for the posts to stop?

I don't think that any of the people here that are suggesting more organization are doing much more than supplying examples from experience. There seems to be little to no "putting of one's money where their mouth is." No one, that I recall, has concluded a post by saying something to the effect of, "I think _____ needs to happen and here's how I'm going to accomplish it." And I don't think any of us really have the you-know-whats to basically step over Rob, Frank, et.al. and take-over.

I agree with a few posts back that Rob, Frank, and other possibly other founding parties should chime in now. Rob and Frank posted early in this thread but have not since (yeah, I know Dave said Frank is unable and I think Rob is far away at work again). Nevertheless, the TAC is not yet officially 1 year old and already there's people talking about organization, corporation / entity, insurance, treasury, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the TAC is largely Rob & Franks club (sorry if I've discredited anyone by calling out only those two). For now, the way the club progresses should largely be guided by them and supported by the members as possible. It's not yet time to "hand it off". Things will progress as needed when the need arises. Personally, I don't think now is the time to be pushing such activities.

So how do we do what Dave originally said and establish something to the effect of: this was said and this was agreed upon and this is why this happened? I suggest that a separate thread only for the purpose of voting for or against having a mission statement. That way, the votes guide the direction and we can move forth with determining exactly the statement or put the issue to bed.

[Gkiesel]

"I've thought before that just the word "officer" raises a certain ire with some Airstreamers. Officers officiate. They tell you what to do. You work for them. "

I've been a unit officer. I worked for my unit. They did not work for me. They worked with me for the betterment of the unit as a whole. Please do not generalize. George

[Dave Park]

Originally Posted by WineStream

So we've discussed this for a week or so now. And it seems like we're down to a few people who want to keep volleying the discussion. I didn't (yet) bother to go back through all the posts and try to determine a consensus, but how do we bring this to a close? Do we vote via Airforums? Will the thread just be closed at a certain date? Will we just wait for the posts to stop?

I was thinking of making it a process, that might be short or long.

About a week before the next magazine deadline, I'm write a summary of the views expressed, send them to the main "expressers" and get some feedback. I'd put the results of that in the mag, and start a new thread for people to discuss that.

It moves things forward.

At any time, Rob could call a vote (or not!) and agree (or not!) to follow the wishes of that vote.

I think there just has to be enough discussion for people to really know what the issues are from everyone's perspective before using their vote.

[Dave Park]

Originally Posted by Gkiesel

"I've thought before that just the word "officer" raises a certain ire with some Airstreamers. Officers officiate. They tell you what to do. You work for them. "

I've been a unit officer. I worked for my unit. They did not work for me. They worked with me for the betterment of the unit as a whole. Please do not generalize. George

I don't think I generalized. I think it does raise the ire of some Airstreamers. Certainly not all. And certainly not all officers raise ire. I get the impression you have thought your comments through and said what you really think is right, and that is all anyone can be asked to do. You were probably an excellent officer who paid attention to the needs of the members you served.

Unfortunately for some, a few officers have left a distaste for that style of operations with their self-serving behavior. A minority.

I hope that is clearer. Sorry that I caused offense by being unclear.

[utee94]

I like "officers." Within my own 501(c)(3) charitable non-profit, I am one. It's work. The non-profit is work. It's rewarding, we raise a lot of money for people in need, but it's work. It's not what I want to think about when I'm attempting to be dead serious about having fun.

For those who don't know, it was me, and not Frank or Rob, who coined that phrase for TAC.

Not that I'm trying to take away credit from Rob and Frank. I love those guys. I've already nominated them as "Dictators For Life" of TAC.

But, the catch phrase is mine. Just want everyone to be clear on that.







-Marcus

[Gene]

Originally Posted by WineStream

Do we vote via Airforums?

I don't think that any of the people here that are suggesting more organization are doing much more than supplying examples from experience.

A Forum poll could be a good idea—town hall style internet democracy. Who writes the questions? Do several people post questions so we different points of view? Is it planned or spontaneous?

People post suggestions based on experience because that's what they know (or think they know). It's anecdotal, but on some things the only evidence we have. We stumble forward.

Gene

[Gene]

Originally Posted by ibgl6

I am just a little confused here. But why would you have to have insurance if you fall you go to the doctor and you pay the bill?? If you have a rally make it prepaid to the campground? Please dont beat me up to much but can someone explain this to me???...SAM

Insurance is to protect 2 parties—

1. The sponsor of a rally or some gathering. If someone falls, or otherwise gets hurt, they may sue the sponsor (among others) and insurance provides a defendant's attorney and pays all or some of any award against the sponsor.

2. The injured, who has a pool of money held by the insurer to make a claim against. So if Joe Judgement Proof sponsors the rally, has previously given all his money and assets to his children and borrows their Airstream, then negligently trips you at a rally and you fall into the campfire, burning yourself, and spreading a fire that destroys your Airstream, there's some deep pockets out there (this, of course, is exactly what happens at most rallies).

I hope you don't feel beat up.

Gene

[Gene]

Originally Posted by Dave Park

These portray the role as someone who is in a service position to the Members.

The induction ceremony, to be celebrated with flags with toilets on them, delegates or "oshifers" carrying plumber's helpers and mops over their shoulders following the kazoo band, will end with the members' command to the newly chosen delegates: "Assume the position!"

Now that will be the high or low point of the annual club rally and will endow our leaders with the necessary deference. The kazoo band will play "The World Turned Upside Down"*.

At subsequent rallies when the oshifers visit to tell us about the wonders of their accomplishments, we will pelt them with rotten tomatoes and offal and demand self-flagellation. Thus, we will have either an humble or a psychotic leadership.

But…

Another word about experience being the subject of posts. None of us have much or any experience with an internet based nontraditional organization. It may be very different, or maybe just a bit different. Thus, experience may be the worst predictor of the end result, and the people with the most experience may be the least expert. I am aware that makes me unqualified.

And some words about reimbursing leaders. It is common for clubs to reimburse leaders for necessary expenses. It's often a demanding and time consuming job, you are often hit on for contributions to the organization, and then having to spend your own money to further the interests of the members can be an additional burden. I don't have a problem with that, even though when I was a board member of one organization I usually refused the perks. I imagine the idea of WBCCI leaders visiting rallies was the inform the members of what was going on. This can get very expensive for the officers, so they started reimbursing themselves travel money. The ideas were good, the implementation bad, the perception worse. Reimbursement can be done well or badly.

Gene

*You probably won't find that on iTunes, but Yorktown fans will know of the song.

[wheel interested]

Originally Posted by utee94

dead serious about having fun.

-Marcus

It's a wonderful phrase Marcus. I thought that was the mission statement! It's enough for me. I rather like a lawless unstructured society, it's a welcome change from where I come from... Make only improvements...as necessary. KISS So far so great, imo. It isn't structure but unity and harmony that goes long towards success. Having the answers doesn't make it work.

[ibgl6]

Originally Posted by CrawfordGene

Insurance is to protect 2 parties—

1. The sponsor of a rally or some gathering. If someone falls, or otherwise gets hurt, they may sue the sponsor (among others) and insurance provides a defendant's attorney and pays all or some of any award against the sponsor.

2. The injured, who has a pool of money held by the insurer to make a claim against. So if Joe Judgement Proof sponsors the rally, has previously given all his money and assets to his children and borrows their Airstream, then negligently trips you at a rally and you fall into the campfire, burning yourself, and spreading a fire that destroys your Airstream, there's some deep pockets out there (this, of course, is exactly what happens at most rallies).

I hope you don't feel beat up.

Gene

No I dont feel beat up I do think accidents happen but grown folks should not take that something could happen and if it does should pay for it and carry on of course if someone intentionally sets fire to your camper put the fire out beat the fire out of them then sue there pants off...SAM

[Byams55FlyCl]

IMHO -
Mission statements are very anti-TAC.
Mission statements are so 1990's.
Mission statements are about adding clutter and not value to members.
Mission statements are not what TAC is about.
Adding mission statement to TAC is like George Orwell's Animal Farm.
IMHO

[hampstead38]

I had to chuckle. Maybe I'm the only one that noticed, but Winestream's post about closing the discussion makes an apt--if inadvertent--point. In this structureless club, everyone seems to be waiting for Rob and/or Frank to tell them to the discussion is over and a decision has been made. There's no momentum for the voting idea--not that I really know what anyone would be voting for or against--probably because it does not have the imprimateur of the founders.

Here's the reality, folks. TAC belongs to Frank and Rob because it's their idea. They have blessed Dave doing a newsletter so there's a newsletter. We can go on playing make-believe that TAC is some formless, shapeless, headless blob... but that really isn't accurate. Because the people here are nice (generally), no one wants to step on Frank or Rob's toes. The people who have joined TAC (me included) are appreciative for having an alternative to the WBCCI. And as long as the number of members stays low, the illusion of no leadership can continue... at least for awhile. If, however, every time a decision point is reached that the result is a long and winding discussion where we don't even have a way of knowing the discussion is over... what then? It's hard to reach a consensus with three people let alone 300.

With Gene, I must again respectfully disagree. This isn't "stumbling forward." It is walking in circles.

[RickDavis]

It should be noted that the WBCCI 2020 committee has a mission statement, and that is when everything ground to a halt.

[Dave Park]

All a "mission statement" is, in practice, is a written version of the majority view of why we're here. Problem is, there isn't a majority view of why we're here - there's just a majority view of why we're not somewhere else.

Here's the catch: TAC already HAS a mission statement. Rob wrote it before TAC even got started. It's quite detailed and is about more than just having fun. It includes a mission of promoting Airstreams, for example.

The second thought that crosses my mind is that while some people would like some notion of what the club plans to do and how to do it, others don't want that to be written down in any way that might ruin their enjoyment of their airstream. If a simple mission statement that says what TAC will and won't do can ruin your enjoyment of your airstream, you're not doing it right

At the end of the day, I don't think there'll ever be a member-written mission statement or anything else. Not because there isn't the energy or desire for it, but because it's simply too divisive an issue.

Folks, if you have a ball and you want to play by yourself that's fine, but when you want to play with others, you need to agree what the rules of the game are, who is in goal, who is keeping score, or the game descends into fights, different people play by different rules, and so on. Short term, it's still playing, but at some point, someone'll get offended and pick up their ball and go home.

I'm not posting Rob's mission statement without his permission.

I find it ironic that in practice, some folks would rather operate under a Mission Statement they've never seen and that was arbitrarily written*, than be given the opportunity to discuss and help form the wording of one that's truly theirs

(* although the mission statement was arbitrarily written to get things going, there's nothing arbitrary about it, and I think its a decent mission statement with some fluff and appeasement added in.)

[Dave Park]

Originally Posted by RickDavis

It should be noted that the WBCCI 2020 committee has a mission statement, and that is when everything ground to a halt.

Did the mission statement contain insanity, or did the committee fail to observe or achieve the mission?