TAC Mission Statement discussion

[nick6930]

Hamp, I dont want to show my ignorance (however I will,) I had to look up "pedantic." Thanks for the word of the day.

Now on topic, I do not understand why everyone is getting spun up about rules and putting anything in writing. We can stay a free will group without ridge constraints. I just believe that the group/club has a better chance of growing and surviving if there is direction. Those Friday night poker games are fun but once you loose the main members the group falls apart. Life happens and the current leaders will be diverted to other things. As it is set right now would TAC have a tough time to move forward? I thik it would. Right now when things get out of hand either Rob or Frank step in and they are the "leaders" elected or not.

The good thing is that we can start to have the conversations and do away with the venomous angry that comes across in the written word. All of this is a grand experiment to see if something could be created. Now we will see if it can grow and survive.

May God bless TAC....opps May a higher being real or not think kindly on TAC....Oh that is right no rules OK then May God Bless TAC.

[hampstead38]

Actually, Dave, I think you're confusing the Declaration of Independence (a mission statement of sorts) with the Constitution (a rule book of sorts).

The Declaration is inspiring. We're all down with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Constitution is where the rubber meets the road. Freedom is great. Something like:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

tells us what freedom really means. The Devil is always in the details, and the details of an organizations are its rules.

Contrary to what it might seem, I don't want to see TAC to have many rules. I also don't want to see TAC end badly because it became yet another failed experiment in structureless organization. Frankly, I think there's a fair amount of consensus on what TAC is and should be. Where I see disagreement is that some people think TAC can thrive and become a great club without any rules. Hey, we're all just doin' our own thang here.

Sooner or later, someone is goingt to need to make a decision about something "clubbish." Sure, you can decide to let Frank and Rob pack water, but there you it... a rule: The Founders shall decide. I like Frank and Rob, but the notion of Presidents-for-Life... doesn't strike me as a sustainable model. Your mileage may vary.

[garry]

Dave started something here that if not Dave then someone else it was just a matter of time.

The discussion on where the club is going and how it's going to get there is inevitable and the lessons of the WBCCI will be a driving force in what not to do but eventually there will have to be some sort of structure and Dave has taken the first step in pointing that out.

It does not sound to me like Dave is running for office but trying to guide the discussion and keep it alive.

I wish others that read but seldom post (the lurkers) would jump in and give their views.

For now the WBCCI is a major recruiter for TAC but for TAC to be successful TAC will have to grow and recruit new members. The day is coming when new members will have to come from the at large Airstream community and they will want to know about the structure of TAC before joining and to say there is no structure may be OK for now but it will not be a good recruiting tool in the future.

[Dave Park]

It's simple.

1. We want to hold impromptu, self organized rallies on a local basis often throughout the year.

2. We want to hold more-planning-required rallies of a larger scale a couple of times a year.

• How often?
• How large?
• Aimed at who?

3. We don't wan't officers, or the trappings of some self-appointing elite taking money for their own benefit.

1. and 3. require nothing more than we already have, but 2. requires a little more organization - in conflict with the aims of some.

The question then becomes: would those people who don't want "organization" deny the minimal organization to achieve 2. without personal liability?

If no, then TAC can proceed in one direction, create a really lightweight structure, and rely on "roles" instead of "people"... If yes, then TAC will continue as is, and people will do what they're doing now, until they tire, retire, or something else comes along.

For clarity, when I say "lightweight structure" I mean literally no rules requiring or forbidding anyone from doing anything, only rules required for the establishment of the club as a legal entity, creation of a "treasurer" position to take care of the money and make sure it's used ONLY for events, and not for the benefit of club positions IN ANY WAY.

I think that can be done on a single sheet of paper, in 12pt text, without changing anything that the no-rules people would want.

Everyone would get what they wanted.

Note: everyone gets what they want also, if we maintain the status quo. However, in that event, what TAC is doing now is all TAC will EVER do.

Comments?

[Gkiesel]

Yes Dave, That's exactly what I meant. Well put. George

[maych]

My (2) cents worth, I believe for TAC to continue to grow there will need to have a treasurer, Liability insurance is a must for rally's if you want people to volenteer as hosts, also there needs to be a method to schedule campgrounds for rally's, I don't think anyone would want to be liable for reserving 25 campsites without some sort of procedure for collecting funds. These procedures should be simple and understandable.

[utee94]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

Sooner or later, someone is goingt to need to make a decision about something "clubbish." Sure, you can decide to let Frank and Rob pack water, but there you it... a rule: The Founders shall decide. I like Frank and Rob, but the notion of Presidents-for-Life... doesn't strike me as a sustainable model. Your mileage may vary.

Actually, let's not sidestep around the issue by using the word "president" as if this is actually some democratic organization, and rather let's just tell it like it is.

I love the idea of naming Frank and Rob "Dictators For Life."




-Marcus

[Gene]

Papa Doc was "president for life". Haiti is not a good example to follow. Back to liability—

Liability is an issue. A liability insurer will want to know what kind of organization there is and since insurance companies don't like anything different than they are used to, they may well want a standard organization. Another thing to check is what will liability insurance cost. Insurers like a track record so they can set rates. An unorganized "national" club with no track record would have difficulty obtaining insurance and will have high premiums.

If there are any insurance experts out there, have I got it right?

Then you need dues, voluntary or mandatory. Take the annual premium and figure out how many members you need. A club that once was free will lose a lot of members once it isn't. If the dues have to be $50 or $75 to pay insurance premiums, who is going to stay—how many want regional rallies? By the way, though people complain about that other organization's dues, they are not unusual for a club. The real complaint is, I think, how the dues are spent. If all the TAC dues were to go to pay insurance premiums, who would like that?

Instead of getting a policy to cover all rallies and officers, you can get event insurance. But if you have more than a few events, that gets very, very expensive.

So, maybe the solution is not to have larger rallies.

Gene

[Dave Park]

My wife proposed two elegant solutions to that problem: one is to make EVERYONE an officer *grins* which solves the entire problem because any rule that benefits an officer benefits everyone.

Her other elegant suggestion was: give the officers LESS rights than the members. Do not let officers vote. Do not let officers propose anything for a vote. Any member can propose for vote with no second needed. Only ordinary members can vote. Therefore, officers never have any influence to turn anything to their benefit - only members can do that.

That's IF TAC as a group ever decided to have officers.

[nick6930]

Dave,

I am confused, if everyone is an officer and only members can vote. Then no one can vote or propose anything? I can't help but laugh and to think that is what we have now. Everyone is in charge no one is in charge. (Meant to laugh not nitpick)

[Dave Park]

It was either/or... Either only members can vote, or make everyone an officer.

Sorry I was unclear. I had a root canal, am on antibiotics that are doing weird things to my insides, and the painkillers make me loopy!

[Gene]

Everyone can be President and the rules will be made by the Council of Presidents. Looks good on our resumés.

Many years ago I knew some guys who created a group like that and the purpose of the group was to give silly awards from the Council of Presidents to self important people who bought the whole thing as if it were real—it was called something like the American Dirigible Society. They would also write letters to cities requesting help in holding a convention and help with mooring on buildings; this would cause all sorts of consternation. All of these guys were college professors with a twisted sense of humor. You can understand why they were my friends.

There are lessons here. Does this describe another club in an alternate universe?

Gene

[Dave Park]

I say nothing!

[Chasmorgan]

Time for the founding fathers, Rob, Frank and others to weigh in on their original ideas and intentions for TAC.

[Dave Park]

Rob can, but due to circumstances beyond his control Frank does not have, ummm, "access" to this site at this time.

[hampstead38]

Everyone a president? Bah, that's like the banking industry where everyone above "teller" is a vice president. Or like the big box stores where clerks are "associates." I don't see where "title inflation" really solves anything. I also don't think officers (or whatever term you prefer) should give up a right to vote. It's one thing to keep officers from becoming too powerful; it's another to make the job so unattractive that no sane person would be interested.

How about title deflation. Call the group "in charge" the Board of Custodians or the Board of Janitors. After having served on several nonprofit boards, I can tell you that a good deal of my time was spent sweeping, cleaning, repairing, unclogging and other less-than-pleasant tasks.

One of the reasons you have a Board (or some body) is because you need people to sign a liability policy or write a check. It's a very boring, practical necessity. And I think the best way of keeping members of the Board serving for the good of the club, rather than themselves, is to bar them from receiving any benefit for service. Or, perhaps more accurately, to only receive such benefits as offered to the members.

Oh, and Gene, only a group of college professors would find themselves with so much free time.

[Dave Park]

Originally Posted by hampstead38

Oh, and Gene, only a group of college professors would find themselves with so much free time.

This reminds me of a post that made me laugh out loud a few weeks ago...

Originally Posted by altnbndr

I have been a union sheet metal worker (local # 162) for over 20years. I cut metal on a daily basis...

Likely story!

[Dave Park]

Back on topic...

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 think the word itself is a big part of the problem.

May I suggest some alternate words that are not so loaded with "authority"?

Adviser
Appointee
Functionary
Public Servant
Representative

These portray the role as someone who is in a service position to the Members. (Why do I smirk when I read that sentence? )

[hampstead38]

Board of Janitors. After all, the people who do this will mostly be cleaning up messes.

[Dave Park]

*grins* But then you fall into the trap that on the whole people don't want to be janitors and are snobbish to them. Who would want to take such a derided position? Something neutral is in order.

Dave the Magazine Janitor.