Fire Family Council Annual Meeting/Retreat

Fire Family Council Visioning 2/22/08

 

Starting with 3 min talking stick sessions on vision.

 

Devra- Is curious about umbrella concept. SoCal is starting a fire and don’t know about legalities, insurance, etc. (Response- Morwen- that subject needs discussion in the larger context of what this organization is and what its purpose is. Let that conversation grow organically)

 

Jasper- Let us read the Vision statement and use that as a starting point for conversation. Group reads each sentence in Vision Statement.

 

Morwen-Feeling that what we are doing is creating a new culture and bringing this to the world enables individuals to live their lives more fully. Don’t want an event that has “the one way.” Are we a national organization, local, regional? That’s the big vision question on the table. Where do we want the organization 10 yrs from now. How much do we support, guide, other events.

 

Missy- Loves the Vision Statement- there is another thing Missy would like to see. What’s the purpose? What do other places/communities get from what we do?

 

Jimi- Why are we here? Personal agendas or for common vision of community gathering? Sees this Council as having that ability to be community organization. How do we continue to be sustainable, continue to bring new people in. This is a gathering which is different than festival.

 

Devra- Some concerns heard from community that Council is chosen from inside, rather than from the Community. The Council does represent the community (in Devra’s word). Feels is important for Council to hold to that vision. A little concerned about how the process has worked.

 

Sylvia- Everyone here is in the community. Feedback is listened to carefully. We come from a cultural/festival background of hierarchical structures, which is perhaps where the concerns come from. We (the Council) have the responsibility to keep the ear to the ground and keep the community desires in place. This is not necessarily an “insiders” group. As a volunteer organization the Council is chosen from among people who have really showed up. It’s important for smooth running to be self selecting, but also including and bringing new people in.

 

Jimi-POINT OF ORDER- When questions come up we write them down- but in this session not necessarily respond right away.

 

Wolf- Questions about geography and geomancy are important- what is underlying principle and technology that we bring to this. One has to be “I’m not always right, and I have to be open to other points of view.” Listening being an important element of what we do. We are creating shared, sacred environments. Based on certain agreements, and we are all here to learn from each other. What are the boundaries and limits with structure/agreements that we hold in common. What are these fundamental principles in our attitudes and what we hold sacred? How can we listen better to each other?

 

James- Really likes the Vision Statement- how do we get there from here? How big do we want to get? Phoenix Fire is Bay Area thing, but FireFamily can be national. We aren’t here to proselytize. But what we want is critical mass- this method works for many people and we want to make it as available as possible. We can be a training/educational group that supports shared group circles to emerge.

 

Peter- I like every Fire in its unique diversity. Inspired to see people showing up to each local fire with their various gifts. As long as contributes to the greater whole.

 

Wolf- repeating Peter- thought was extremely well said.

 

Jasper- On issue of scope- national, regional, or what- what James said is everything is local. As we think about umbrella-ness- we must be aware of growing faster than we have the people to support. Concerned about surviving as long as there are the people there to support, while holding to the vision of a larger thing down the road. In this ramp up period- to have scope to be achievable.

 

Padme- while SoCal fire is aligned with FFG- must make sure groups are lined up and what are procedures

 

Patrick – Agrees with a lot of what is being said.  A national vision is a good vision  but definitely concerns over growing too big too fast.  Still in process of formulating council.  PF is our baby, that is a good model to be with, of having one event that we spearhead.  In the long term, can umbrella other organizations.  Would be powerful if council was of organizers of these other events, and rotate.  We are starting to see that rotation.  Give and take of people who go away to do their local event and then come back to PF council.  PF becomes the meeting point to come together as the bigger gathering.  How big do we want to get?  500?  Good question.  How big on a national level organization.  Gets into a bit of admin parts but could be lessened by having self supporting structure, and events having their own support.

 

Jasper- Responding to Patrick- Council had previously agreed to not grow PF beyond 250.

 

Jimi- PF precipitated out of one person choosing people to represent community. What we now have as a self-selecting group that finds people who work together. And that is a strength. Have concerns about being an umbrella- believes this group can accomplish that. But has to really be able to delegate and work with individuals from other groups. People are coming (to us) and we have to ready.

 

Sylvia- not clear on what 10 year plan is- or how we get there. Feels what we can offer to SoCal is an advisory board, documentation about how to deal with liability, etc. But not taking on responsibility. If folks want it bigger, Sylvia won’t be on Council. Down the road, not only do we put on amazing event, but what do we offer the larger society in other ways- disaster relief, other forms of social change.

 

Wolf- Also like to call in history of being in Redwoods. Where we’ve done all work together. Important to ask question of what is its identity and what land container is there. What is scope of FFG? What are we modeling as a 250 person event?

 

Morwen- not to be nitpicky, but birthplace of this style of FireCircle is deciduous forest of East Coast. Don’t necessarily see this org. as an umbrella, but a network. There are some key issues needing to be discussed. For this organization, we steward a specific vision- we are not a representative democracy. Argue against elected Council- campaigning and politicking would become mode of operation for people. Plus, who gets a vote? We have this gathering once a year- comprised of different groups. Would really want to shy away from FFG taking responsibility for other regional groups. Very wary of Council that represented different groups. Vision to make world a better place is deliberately vague to include a lot of different people.

 

POINT OF ORDER-Remember that all previous agreements and decisions made were crafted after many hours of careful deliberation and conversation.

 

James- One word comes to segregation- Regional groups can be protected by umbrella of FFG. Does not require much from FFG to umbrella groups- $117 and ten minutes to support other groups. Considering the gravity of the situation (potential liability). Regional groups would handle all their own organizational stuff.

 

POINT OF ORDER- can we switch to a response session to this issue?

 

Jasper- what you’re talking about is covering liability?

James- Corporation covers insurance, regional groups pay for.

Wolf- important to consider any group under umbrella- must structure vision to be in alignment with FFG. Is there a legal parameter for that? No.

Morwen- Concern that energetic and vision pieces are not so easy. Could become a deluge of requests from other groups. Would really have to have a process and what standards are, what kind of representation exists. In principle supports idea- but as a volunteer organization we are limited in resources. Don’t want to do anything arbitrary. Thinks there would be a huge demand.

Jimi- We are protected as individuals (because FFG is incorporated)- and local organizations would be able to piggy back under insurance policy. (Jasper- we only have insurance for event time) Would we then have a whole insurance policy. (James- no each event would pay for own event?) What then happens when individual event has an incident?

James- becomes organizational history and increases premium for everyone

Jimi-Dance New England sponsored other local events- but other events had to be co-operatively run. An event would be not allowed to join DNE if run by one person.

Devra- Reiterating questions- what is benefit to FFG? Seems like the FFG/PF structure is leading to sponsorship/umbrella organization. People from SoCal/Spark have all been part of PF.  Another question- who is in the Fire Family? Any fire gathering or PF?

 

Jimi- How do we define membership?

 

Padme- What we are about is to help share the technology of FireCircle. Thinks organizational structure of affiliated groups has to be in alignment with FFG.

 

Patrick: Jimi brought up a good point.  My sense and feeling is that at this time, we have three local groups that have coalesced and created themselves as viable groups : SoCal & Spark & Redwood Nights.  Those are the groups that sponsored rituals at PF.  It seems that those would be good groups to take that on again.  It’s important that we be really clear in our definitions of Fire Family gathering.  To be on council, attendance at Phoenix Fire is a necessary entry point.  PF is a distinct event outside of other circles.  …  We are the large family, we have commonality and familiarities, but PF is a different being in itself due to how we have structured it.  Its something new that we’ve created.  I think that people from the circle community, PF would be a necessary point to be on council.  That’s where the FFG is what we sponsor as an organization.  What we are playing with in this idea, is the terminology of a network rather than umbrella.  The network can kind of link up rather than umbrella with own admin, but has protection.  Brings in the conversation of what liability there is and what does happen when something happens?  The non-profit then makes itself more vulnerable to these things and can get shut down or under heavy legal scrutiny.  An edge to play with and look at.  Support it in principle.

 

Jimi –does dissolution of Nonprofit require attorney general?

 

James – not in CA

 

Patrick – question to legal:  say SoCal had its fire and someone got really hurt, and it was supported by FFG, what would be the repercussions.

 

James – depends on insurance company, it would affect insurance there, not necessarily everywhere else.  Corporation does not get affected.

 

Patrick – important to know.

 

James – depends on insurance company.  There are insurance companies that specialize in non-profits

 

Devra – would insurance be less under umbrella?

 

James – yes, because of our history and we’ve been doing this for years.

 

Morwen – rates have not gone down for us from year to year because of history

 

Jasper – rates went down due to nonprofit, not track record

 

Patrick – if FFG to take this on….like verbiage of network.  Network nonprofit, different nodes, brings in whole thing of how council is comprised – of nodes – devoted to PF, which could be a node itself.  Languaging is important if we go down this route, it is a network more than an umbrella, and this can really enable this expansion.  PF is jewel of FFG as a community based FC, could have PF-east.

 

Wolf- Redwood nights- Don’t have insurance, more people are showing up? Liability is coming up. Who is liable?

 

James- everybody- organizers, landowners, etc. Risk is huge for organizers.

 

Wolf- need to establish guidelines for local firecircles. Limited PF to 250. Local groups would have to have some involvement in PF and even representation on Council or Staff. Some one from local groups would be on Council or Staff.

 

James- would not need to go out and advertise for groups to be in network.

 

Morwen- Not sure we want to set up permanent network. We will be approached and asked by numerous groups to support- Saying no can bring up lots of issues. If FFG sponsors groups- a fee for service should be activated. In the interest of spreading this technology, Morwen, feels torn that we could really support other groups, but that this could become a full time job. There is an emotional connection to support the three groups that sprung from PF.

 

Jimi- DNE is an organization unto itself- local dances are represented on board/Council by one or two individuals, plus at-large members. A separate sub-group (Camp Coordinating Group) puts on the event. Things are gelling faster here than they did on East Coast. About 4 or 5 nodes from DNE. Dances become self-sustaining.

 

Devra- Wants to be clear on definition of network vs. umbrella.

 

Morwen- Non-profit umbrella supports groups to grow into their own entity.

 

Devra- Mentioned fees- there is one bank acct. fees would feed PF or FFG? Where does the money go?

 

Morwen- Fees would go to organization for filing services and support.

 

James- only one organization doing the filing.

 

Missy- Noticing dissipation of energy. Amazing to be sitting in this conversation. If we begin to think on a National level- each little group would be like a member of the council. Sees things in vision statement that need to be fleshed out. Sees vision, and a mission and principles that can be fleshed out. These become decision points. These become guiding principles. Perhaps a core group can get together to articulate these and then come back to Council. Important to point out the difference of coming FROM FFG vs coming TO.  Someone did circle with Spark and was amazed and wanted to do a circle in Utah. We can provide an outlet for people to start new circles.

 

Patrick – fees, to reiterate – we would want to make it something that is affordable and better financial route rather than their own incorporation, small token that would go the organization to support it. I like point Missy made, about coming from us rather than to us.  If a circle got started and we could bring them in, that would require more procedure, whereas what comes from us does not require procedure.  I am getting into this idea of taking this circle, whether it is one night or three, where you  bring it somewhere, like another event even, incorporating into other parts of community, I think this kind of network would be incredible.  To have a front to say we are an organized group diverse, centralized, at the same time.  We have the webs and networks – web of life – proper languaging, structure, sussing out the qualifications and coming from us is the good starting point.

 

Peter- What is time of length that reduces premium of insurance. If someone is under the umbrella- can they spin off and use that history for new group.

Sees two things- may be a lot of tax filing, and money. Currently just few circles. But how would it deal with when/if becomes bigger. Would hate to see that we disallow, turn down this concept out of fear.

 

Jimi- still a question unanswered- what does PF/FFG benefit from this?

 

James- Diversity breeds strength- we learn from other groups.

 

Jimi- DNE could financially support other nodes because it became very successful. Money could still go both ways. But DNE became like a MotherShip.

 

BREAK!!!!!!

 

Devra – when does registration open and what is the price break?

 

Morwen – last half hour – throw out a proposal that could be a wrap-up and next steps from this conversation.  Let’s identify what specific things need to be done in order to open registration.

Proposal:  Having heard everything and recognizing there are three groups that we have all identified and I have a sense of the room that there is general willingness to support and need for clarity.

 

Create a small subcommittee to go away to come up with a drafted guidelines on some of these issues we have talked about and take a first stab at the principles that we want to identify as well, to come back to this group with those proposed criteria and guidelines for those three groups coming under the umbrella of our liability, protection and insurance for the next year and give us a concrete response.  Based on what people have to say I suggest to be part of that, suggest James to be part of that and Missy.

 

Jasper – amendment:  there be a tight timeline on all this so that it does not turn into a large project.

 

Wolf – next Redwood Nights event March 15^th.

 

Jimi – concern

 

Morwen – concern – if it turns big, that we drop it because we cant take too much time on it.  With an exit clause if it’s big to table until after the gathering.

 

Jimi – 2^nd concern is at same time some kind of concurrent with that, I would like us, how we come out of this weekend on work on our own process.  I want to see some more of our own process gel.  Promise that an equal committee that is completing the work of our guidelines and operating.

 

Morwen – I hear the concern, I am talking about something temporary agreement in the short term to formalize our relationship.

 

Jimi – for me to go along, some serious work on our own process needs to happen.

 

James – I favor pulling out all the stops to make sure we have a decision before the next event.  There is a huge risk.  I want to jump on it and make sure that all these people are covered.

 

Morwen – I hear that.  I want to find a way to do that.  The urgency of those groups does not necessarily mean it is our urgency.  Don’t want to be pressured by someone else’s need.  If it fits in our mission to do it, we should do it, and if it doesn’t, we shouldn’t.

 

James – I don’t view them as someone else.

 

Morwen – they are, we have created a specific focus for this group.  If it is going to be longer than March 15^th, I don’t think we can do it. 

 

Wolf – What are we talking about?

 

Morwen – we are talking about what are the criteria and how is it going to work

 

Peter – something might be like ‘a discussion needs to happen of fire safety before they throw wood on a fire”

 

Morwen – if someone comes in under our insurance, and something happens, it becomes our history

 

Patrick – I agree with taking time and not feeling pressured.  We have an opportunity to be able to move on this with the parameter of  “from us.”  Limits to Spark, SoCal and Redwoods.  Look at this as pilot groups to get us moving in a direction.  Discussion needs to be what do we need?  Safety parameters in line, someone in that group is appointed as a safety person.  Like organic certification. 

 

Morwen – my proposal is to put it to a subcommittee to flesh out.  Don’t want to make quick decisions on fear.  Must be rooted in our mission

 

Padme – to add, group has a choice to do the gathering with or without risk, we can afford to discuss.

 

Morwen – don’t want to be pressured by urgency

 

Wolf – incremental steps of inclusiveness.  Why not take that in steps and one of the minimal steps around benefits of non profit is that we can provide a level of safety.

 

Jimi – this is one of my highest visions, in large support of this happening.  This ties our reputation in, I want to make sure it is done right.

 

James – since it is coming from us, that makes a difference, we are limiting this initial decision to us.  If we were going to do outside people that is a different criteria

 

Morwen – I am suggesting that a subcommittee to develop guidelines – week to ten days.

 

Modified proposal – To empower a subcommittee to draft some guidelines to bring back to Council to enable these three groups, coming under our umbrella for the purposes of liability and insurance, recognizing that this would be a first step in the creation of this process.  The acceptance of these groups would be for one year. 

 

Jimi – explains silence equals consensus.

 

Jimi – call for consensus.  CONSENT.

 

Devra – what about personal waivers?

 

Morwen – does not hold up with insurance company

 

Peter – private party and someone breaks a leg what is the liability. 

 

James – it is homeowner

 

Peter – different layers, there is tomorrow, there is upcoming events and then may or may not for future.  You might want to have things on the table that says “invitation of private party” to help mitigate

 

Morwen – we are not talking about insurance.  What we are talking about liability against being sued. 

 

Patrick – groups might get a discount on insurance

 

Devra – if a spark starts a forest fire – that’s insurance, who’s going to sue?

 

Morwen – protection we are offering as a nonprofit is from being personally sued, particularly the organizers.  Anyone can buy insurance for an event

 

James – government went after guys hosting a fire circle that started a fire circle.

 

Wolf – clarification of year?

 

Morwen – safe to say a year, because after PF, let it go through the fall.  So that we can address in more depth.

 

Committee:  Morwen, Jimi, Wolf, James, Missy

 

Jimi – last thing we need time for – process last year’s gathering.

 

 

Processing last years Gathering----

Morwen- what do we need to do to open reg? ****

            -contract with price (from the camp)

            -other expenses going up?

            -wood will go up?

            -how much will go up and adjust registration accordingly.

            -village builder pricing will affect budget

 

 

Jasper – last year’s budget is the base for the next year’s budget

 

Patrick – also consider what we are doing with meals

 

Morwen – set ourselves a target date.  Intention last year was March 15^th, but we were late.

 

Jasper – ideally, end of March

 

Morwen – April 1^st would be a good goal

 

Jimi – some info needs to be gathered.  Some unknowns

Food

Wood and fuel

Camp price goes up?

 

Some of these are guestimates.

 

Jasper – restructuring village builders, might restructure standard registration .

 

Morwen – don’t think it will go down, but possibly can be same.  We have run a surplus in the past

 

Jasper – right, if there is room to squeek down.

 

Wolf – do we have scholarship?

 

Jimi – what else for reg?  besides prices. 

 

Jasper – once that is set, there needs to be time to update system and the website.  Two separate things.  If things stay more or less the same structure and just dollars change,  will be easy.  If all structure changes, it is a bigger job to change registration.

 

Morwen – so that we know, if there are going to be major changes, how much time to redo system to build into our timeline?

 

Jasper – I would say to be safe, I would want two weeks.  The sooner I can get partial info, ie structure but no dollars, I can start.  Processes can overlap

 

Wolf – Una and Jimi camp contact; is there negotiation?

 

Jimi – no, they know they have us over a barrel.  We need to talk about wood.  Thinking about our carbon footprint.  Need to work on it.  Proposal from Dennis about getting meat from off the land.  Procuring wood will be an issue.

 

Wolf – charging us more every year beyond the cost of inflation, what is the benefit.  We had to do a lot to keep camp in working order.  Paying rent should mean they do those things.  That is where we can give them feedback and negotiate some of those things.

 

Morwen – don’t think we can negotiate price, but other things could work.

 

Jimi – one thing is more cooler space – they were storing stuff in the ovens and what not.  They don’t care, there is a corp office that only looks at it on paper.  That is why we are trying to find somewhere else.

 

Wolf – if we can turn the feedback loop, through Dennis or elsewhere, about what we can reasonably expect for the money we put out for rental of a space if we are not getting.

 

Jasper – we have not been able to find anything that gets us this benefit for this money.  We can’t do as good elsewhere, we are not in that strong of a position.

 

James – we should not rely on them making sensible decisions

 

Patrick – got email Buddhist retreat center, where Starhawk does training, several sites for firecircles, enough camping, industrial kitchen, strongest lead we have had – northern Sonoma county.  Beautiful view, 20 min hike to ocean, with some redwoods but been cut.

 

Jimi – concerns of site is how misty if close to ocean

 

Morwen- to talk about some processing from last year, how important that feels since we are future focused, useful now that 6 months have gone by, would love to hear:

1. what’s the one highlight I remember the most from last year
2. one thing you remember from last year that want to make sure is different this year.

 

Patrick – use stick to go around

 

Patrick:  golden moment: some complained, loved last morning’s closing circle.  So many tears shed that last morning.  Impromptu and unplanned is beauty, all power in that little child with intro to tribe and I thought it was a beautiful morning.  Improvement:  walked out of circle and no breakfast at circle last morning.  Want to watch that detail as food coordinator.

 

Jimi:  worst: being in van almost over mountain with thousands of dollars of food sitting on side of road.  High point:  around fire drumming.

 

Morwen:  Highs: a lot with drumming around fire, one thing that still sticks with me was the discussion we got into after vision council about how we take this out into our lives and how spirituality is expressed that is inclusive of everyone, that was so fabulous.  That stays with me, the quality of the passion and ideas and heart, really juicy. 

Worst:  excruciating long waiting leadup to opening rituals.  Waiting and waiting and waiting for people to come who were waiting for us to be done;  that has to change.

 

Padme:  High: closing circle last morning with baby blessing.  Blew me out of the water.  Will carry with me whole life.  Difficulties:  food menu, a lot of things that I personally have problems with, that was challenging. 

 

James:  Highlights:  participating in opening rituals  Lows:  needed more lights – problematic and dangerous.  Music workshops should be in village because it will attract more people and provide entertainment.

 

Wolf:  Highs:  grooves around the fire, getting possessed.  Sweet highlight working with Susan in sweat lodge.  Beauty of weaving masculine and feminine support into lodge – sweet balance with my partner was so special.  Challenges:  closing rituals need to be tightened.  Gate tripping at the bottom “wake-up bar”.  Even when you tell someone, they trip over it 

 

Sylvia:  Highs: so moved by the long ritual but also feeling everyone’s energies as they are waiting.  Challenge:  clear idea of what was going to happen in the morning that got hijacked – standing for long time in long rituals, very difficult.  Managing the time and magic that works with a larger quantity of attention spans.

 

Peter – Chronological:  encouraged and achieved arrival of two twelve year old girls at circle and made me nervous at the opening ritual.  Not saying something has to change, just stating fact.  Hoping it wouldn’t go on too long, own inner process.  Highlight;  after formal opening segued into circle, seeing those two girls go around and around and around happily.  Highlight:  being in the qwanza hut with apple slices being cut, banana bread, a drum groove to honor harvest, and making banana bread and rangoli was happening and fire crew tending torches – great soup of work and joy and play all indistinguishable.  That is what this work helps transform – lead into gold – is the notion of labor, turning what we need to do into a playground and I saw it happen.

 

Missy- The Dawn ritual was very moving (not necessarily baby portion) was highlight.

Scheduling was a challenge. Always felt like was missing something.

 

Jasper – golden – lighting fire across from Jason, and drumming with Morwen. Things to change – not drastic – look forward to refining service groups.  Good step forward and room to refine. 

 

Devra – great moments:  being in portal, priestessing position, greeting people with troubled souls, people cried, witnessing them start out with their lead and then seeing them transition.  Was affirming.  I hope we have that portal.  Would like to refine:  wants to do less had done food, and setting up, etc.  burned out quickly.  Want to keep saying yes when spirit offers.  Vending might be a personal challenge.  It’s a joy to dress people. 

 

Jasper – registration is very front loaded.

 

Wolf – recognize that vendors need help too – allocating village staff to be on call or participants to help.

 

 

*******

 

Saturday morning- Council orientation and internal Council process

            -Council Job descriptions

Morwen – Stuff to do today:

what are we as council members agreeing to do? – connects to what to do when/if council members are not necessarily performing as agreed – desire to make agreements clear up front.  Electing officers and what are those job descriptions – legal thing required. 

Short review of consensus process.

 Division of council vs. staff jobs including discussion of staff roles and who would be good for what staff roles. (Has handout of key staff positions) 

For tomorrow – food, committees, village builders, leaving with a to do list.

 

Jimi – thinks to do council description first.  Then describe consensus process.  Have a new person to council describe to do a check on consensus and how we are teaching it to each other.

 

Everyone agrees on that order

 

Jimi – important so we all have the same agreement.

 

Sylvia – do we have the written description

 

Morwen – good beginning – the expectations we wrote last year for Council members.  Not comprehensive, but good place to start. 

1. Council are stewards and guardians of the vision – in classic NFP structure, the board/council is responsible for governance whereas staff is responsible for implementation of mission.  Typically separate groups of individuals.  We have a hybrid where we have cross over/overlap between the groups

Patrick – seen that before

 

Morwen – more common that board are volunteer.  Admin work progresses to point to need to hire someone to do work.  First staff person tends not to be a decision making board member.  We kind of have that situation – registrar not on council.  With Jasper last year, she excused herself from discussions of registrar payment.  Have person affected stand down from discussion that might cause conflict of interest.  Some other staff positions we have we may want to consider some payment or stipend for these positions in the future.  We want those kind of people not to be council, but supervised by council. 

 

Governance vs. Implementation dichotomy

 

1. “Stewards & guardians of the vision” in charge of big picture – maintains that dichotomy

 

2. All other things for council said last year were operational, i.e.  Active participant in communications – REALLY BIG PART OF IT

 

3.  Active on at least one committee (some committees defined some to be redone – we will be working on)

 

We may want to talk about what kind of participation from council members.  Each Committee should be chaired or co-chaired by a council member and some council members left over.

 

Missy – question about what requirements of council to be on committees

 

Jimi – only needs to be a council liaison

 

Morwen – taking note on council requirements on committee

 

Missy – Please note a check in on what has been decided in past and do we still feel that is applicable or appropriate with new people, acknowledging that new council members come to council in trust of past decisions were in best interest of the group.

 

Jimi – reading council:

 

Stewards of mission/vision

Fiduciary, accountable to community, public at large, and to IRS, government etc.

 

1. attend annual board meeting and mid year retreat
2. attend the annual gathering
3. serve on at least one council committee
4. educate self about consensus
5. participate in all communications – access to email and stay current with calls

NOTES:  possible emergency extra meetings or something

 

Jimi – don’t forget about term limits

 

Morwen – we have our financial info available on website

 

James – what is on site is much more than tax reporting requirements

 

Morwen – we go above and beyond what is required for public reporting

 

Jimi – I think there is more to the council description, such as term – 2 consecutive terms of 3 years, maximum, then step down and could come back later.

 

Morwen – Leave of absence policy does not need to be part of this agreement, but we are putting together an operating manual for ourselves so some of those things are recorded.

 

Jimi – once the agreement created and we sign, that will be same agreement for other board members coming on in the future (including those returning from leave of absence).

 

James – I think good as is

 

Morwen & Sylvia – question is do we want to add anything more

 

Sylvia – for example, conference calls, every two weeks, and then once a week, an hour and a half. 

 

Morwen – last year, committees went to work and the whole group met only once a month so that committees can be active in between

 

Jimi – part of terms limits not fleshed out.  Technically speaking, third year, end of term.  What’s not clear, does the second term by my choice or what?

 

Morwen – yes, it is by your choice.  That was the intention of what we did last year.

 

Sylvia – there was a lot of stuff up in the air because when we first made term limits we thought we would stagger it. 

 

Morwen – we said some would take a one year term and some a two year term, to start.

 

Patrick – does that mean council has to consent on renewed term

 

Morwen – summarize what’s on the table: two issues:

 

1. Term limits – to discuss
2. Committee requirements – what do we mean by council committee and what kind of participation required?

 

Missy – question on what other policy available for dealing with non-functioning members

 

Morwen – Let’s do a round on each

 

Consent by all to do that.

 

TERM LIMITS

 

Jimi – We have some standing agreements with Board members who have taken a leave of absence.  That agreement is that it is an automatic come back.  I think that is tied to the second term issue and some process.  Not saying what the process is, but saying there should be a balance between returnees and how do you enter into the second term – what is the agreement or process.  That is related to how to return from leave of absence.  Possibly coming back into a new situation for both of those.  Right now, one seems automatic, coming back from leave, but second term is not necessarily, I don’t know.  I don’t have a suggestion, based on pulse of group.

 

Morwen – Three very distinct very different issues:

1. terms for council members
2. leave of absence process
3. review of council members (and possibly leaving Council as a result)

They are very different things.

 

My understanding is:  leave of absence involves an automatic return at the end by definition.  If there is a different assessment process it is something else, not a leave of absence.  That is the agreement we made with people on leave, we can’t change that. 

Building in a review process is good and important, not just in context of leave or end of term, but possibly on an annual basis.  It doesn’t need to be huge, but returning to standards and guidelines and we might have some kind of open feedback self regulating process.  We did some of that after the gathering last year.  It may be personal processing or not.

On terms – if you are accepted onto the board for 3 year term, if you choose to stay for another three years, you do (never saw it work differently in any other nonprofit).  I would advocate that to be choice of member to stay for another three years.  And after 6 years must take a year off and then must go through same nomination process to come back.

 

Jimi – clarification: you come back after the year off as ‘new’?

 

Morwen – yes.  After a year you are eligible and decision is up to council

Open to other ideas

 

Padme – it sounds to me pretty straightforward.  Don’t have a lot to add right now.

 

Wolf – parameters on terms and what not is too complicated.  My impression was originally one 3-year limit.  Since there is an importance for continuity especially at the start, I see importance of beyond the 3^rd year for original council members.  Term limits, should be shorter, like 1 3-year term, if we have an abundance of potential council members to choose from.  This would make the council fresh and change over frequent and more people opportunity.  Leave of absence policy, was created under cloudy circumstances.  I agree not to change policy, keep integrity with people who have stepped off, but would like to revisit as council for after those people.  Perhaps some clarification needs to happen for people who need to step off.  I would like to see more circulation, 6 years seems like a long time.  Revisit policy, not necessarily this weekend.  Think there are a lot of potential members that could be good.  And importance of continuity and transfer of information can happen in 3 years rather than 6.

 

James – I don’t like term limits.  Don’t have a problem because I don’t think people will do the full 6 years which will help the stagger.  I would separate that out from removing members, that is available any time. 

 

Sylvia – Never was happy with leave of absence policy but didn’t block it.  Problem is that someone leaves and then a year passes, a new council and they may or may not work with the new people and forcing people to work with.  Does not support a situation where people are dysfunctional or don’t get along.  If it was going to be re-reviewed, they can come back with review process at top of roster.  That would be a better process in the future.  I like a lot of rotation and a lot to be said for continuity, why fix what’s not broken.  Can argue both directions.  1^st term of three and second term might be shorter, or too complex?

 

Patrick – In same boat with Sylvia.  Leave of Absence.  Self selecting process of who is on council.  Returning member can tie an arm behind back.  Don’t know how to work around with it now.  Caveat of the review of leave of absence people stepping in or something maybe as suggested by Sylvia.  Still in formation process, for those that have gone on leave, they will return to more fully defined choices and decisions and that is reasonable for them to know and accept.  Terms, could be nebulous of two 3 years terms.  If we can assess someone at any point, then, why have it.  A year review anyway.

 

Morwen – end of 1^st 3 year is a graceful exit for person.

 

Patrick – If you do three years, then steps away, what is the return policy?  Is it automatic or not or what?  Needs to be fleshed out more. 

 

Missy- Term is 3 yrs- likes the two term thing- if you do consecutive term- If you do two terms its automatic- but a break in first/second term is a re-application process.  Sabbatical process could be a good option- having involvement in decisions, but not on committee or vise versa.

Wolf- advisory council acts as resource but not decision maker.

Current situation, leave of absence involves either advisory council position or complete leave from everything, but we also have a “hybrid” leave- Jasper is still involved as treasurer, but not a decision maker

Missy- a term is a term-  council member steps in knowing term is a 3 yr commitment. Not everyone will do all 6 yrs. Review process in council and for individual necessary. Personal check in necessary.

 

Peter – question:  can this decision be changed by a future council? 

Answer: yes

Morwen – unless we put term limits in bylaws which makes it more difficult, but still can be changed.

 

Peter – another question – what is the current staggering?

 

Jimi – Sylvia, Jimi, Morwen and Wolf are all on their third year.  Patrick will be one year at 6 months.

 

Another group of people to come on next year after gathering.

 

Jasper, Una, Jason could come back. 

 

Patrick – there could  be a more steady staggeration.

 

Peter – trying to understand.

 

Jimi – we had one, two and three years but now it is staggered enough

 

Peter – Concur with Sylvia and Patrick that if it is a desire to have full consensus of group for everyone who comes in, then automatic return of leave of absence could be a problem.  Also concurring what Missy said of return to second term of 3 years.  Concur with Wolf on complication

 

Missy – question – limit on # of terms?

 

Morwen – No limit on total number of terms after the required breaks, but reminder that one can’t just come back, return requires invitation of the council.

 

Jimi – been with a board with very few people who left because no term limits, and decisions were difficult.  With reviews, there was a respectful way to get them to step down to advisory capacity and decision making process is much easier.  Really important to have processes down as soon as possible.  I also didn’t feel good about leave policy and I didn’t block.  We had conflict of interest with making decision with people who it affected.  I agree with Wolf we should stick to agreements made so far, but modify for future.  Term limits, I support 3 year term limit, it takes one year to get into stride.  3 year to me is a minimum and would be fine longer or first longer second shorter.  4 years works really well, very few people actually do come back, they usually move on.  I think that is a human way and expect it.

 

Question:  take a leave of absence at end of 3^rd year? not automatic. 

 

Leaves are unique and should be considered individually. The leave of absence policy is there for a special circumstance, should not be routine.

 

Board reviews are really important for self review and review of others.  Works really well and is confidential.  There is history of difficult relationships on Council.  We now have more team spirit and completely different energy to me.  What happens if a challenging person comes back in and the board is different and the atmosphere is different.  That is why we need to craft our board commitment and sign it and those that return will sign to it as well which will maintain integrity of the energy here.  Important to look back at agreement on occasion.

 

 

Morwen – Been on many boards and board development work.  We are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.  Some problems were created because original Council was appointed by one person, not chosen by group process. Leave of absence policy came up to solve a particular problem at that time.  I feel strongly that as I proposed as it is more than to address that situation.  The other solutions were to structure advisory council as a revolving door, which doesn’t work.  Leave policy is not to be used often.  I like idea of the first term being 3 years and that is the commitment.  I never saw a council or board that has a process that people come in and then have to be approved again for second term.  Nor should be an issue to return after 1^st term because they went through that process once and they would fly through a second time.  I think some of the fear stuff is about the one particular past situation.  I agree with Jimi the way to deal with that is to be clear with parameters and review process and nip problems in the bud.

 

The Council can be expanded (up to 15 according to the bylaws) so that we don’t need to bring people off to bring people on.  The purpose of non-profit is to have the organization outlive individuals.  Talking in those terms, 6 years is not that long.  It might feel long for us as individuals.  But continuity is very valuable and it would be fortunate to have someone serve a full 6 years.  New energy is really important and staggering is important.  I feel good because we have room for expansion as well as a couple of people in the wings

 

Morwen – doesn’t feel like it will be same council forever.  We noticed who went above and beyond, chose nominees based on that.

 

Sylvia – we all should be watching for that

 

Morwen – that was our source list.  We sitting here are all on that list.

 

MORWEN – PAY ATTENTION TO THE COMMUNITY PULSE AND THE PEOPLE – as something else on the job description list.

Terms work well especially with proper process for in and out.

 

Padme – agree with Wolf and Morwen – a lot of really talented people out there.  After 3 years most people will want a break.  Unlikely with right safety in place we won’t get stuck with someone who is not for best of group.  Self and peer review process, provides good framework for keeping functional group.  Yes to honor the agreements we made and it will be fine and we’ll go forward.

 

Wolf-  agree that its problematic that original council was appointed which creates different process.  Looking at making decisions from place of potential and possibility of challenges.  Since I was at root of a challenge, its fair to say as I can be objective, some of the review process when came up around me was very different from what I shared about myself.  I was challenged about my presence and availability at the gathering.  Process was a good one.  Council’s choice on who we bring in and review process, it will be self correcting.    Deep level of wisdom and forethought in council and as collective group is solid.  Separate current council from what our policy should be.  We have to trust the council to make decisions while we are gone and accept that.  In terms of terms are 2 three years terms necessary?

Morwen – don’t want to encourage leave of absence, it should be for special cases, not routine.

 

Wolf – so it’s to elicit a 3-year term.  What to do if an existing council member has had interpersonal behavior that is very questionable and assaultive on the community standards, but not necessarily in relationship to how they relate to council. 

 

Patrick – a good question – something that someone does wrong outside of council.

 

Jimi – bottom line is are you a liability to the group or not?

 

James – I like what everyone said about term limits, I like two sets of three, I don’t want to talk about it anymore.  Need of the council to be hands-on will adjust dramatically.  It is enough to say, it is expected of council to work on committee and staff work as needed.  Broad enough to cover those needs. 

 

Sylvia – closing in on end of conversation.  Assessing of leave of absence person returning could be handled by the policy that we will come up with.

 

Patrick – With folks currently on leave, when they return we point out this is where we are and are going and they may or may not want to participate in that and they should know we have established the process more clearly. 

 

Missy- lets pull together the proposal for what this policy is.

 

Peter – dances

 

Jimi –part of past problem was co-created with our unwillingness to deal with complicated and challenging things and I feel responsible for it. 

 

Morwen – suggest with a proposal for this for later for a committee to write.

 

Jimi – who and what?

 

Morwen – Patrick, Morwen and Missy to wordsmith a proposal [this proposal was further shaped in later discussion and incorporated into Council job description]

 

Wolf – word something in that we can trust that the council will have the capability to handle situations that come up.

 

James – staff issue should be reviewed each year as the community changes. 

 

Morwen – want to leave enough flexibility without having to ‘tweak’ it each year.  Those who are good at derailing are also good at avoiding.  Hard to initiate conversation without something concrete.  That is what happened, we would like to nip things in the bud as much as possible.  We don’t want to be too rigid but something to use as a guideline.

 

Piece about committees, but don’t need to list committees in document. 

 

Executive committee

Ad-hoc committees

Event committees

 

‘council (or “board development”) committee’ was intended to be separate from event committees

 

Missy – question – discuss categories of committees rather than specific.

 

BREAK

 

Morwen – what to do before lunch?  Piece about committees  - not clear how big or not big, might be hard to dive into without knowing what the committees are.  There is a proposal on the table for a list of committees.  Other things are:  consensus process review, elect officers, policy for removal of members, division of council and staff. 

 

Jimi – let’s do consensus review, it is quick.  I propose someone new reflect back about process. 

 

Padme – I don’t feel like I can offer a complete definition. 

 

[discussion/”training” about consensus decision-making process – no notes]

 

BREAK FOR LUNCH

 

Morwen – question:  we did not actually draft the job description for this afternoon, there is still the committee piece and the policy for council members not working out, and council review piece. 

 

Suggestion based on feedback and discussions, there are two committees that we could do some outreach to larger community for larger participation in but we definitely want chaired by council members: kitchen/food and ritual tech.  Different from committees that are internal council committees for the gathering. 

 

Morwen – council jobs and review process to be in the document written by the committee.

 

Re:  consensus participation, Missy has a document about participating that is great and already written.

 

Agreement to go back to discussing the review process for council.

 

“Entrance & Exit Policy” to be name of total

 

Jimi – we make agreements, how we take care of each other.

 

Morwen – conflict resolution, problem solving, etc.

 

Peter – there is a job description therefore there is an expectation that someone will perform said job.  That is the entrance.  We need an exit policy as well that says you didn’t do that, etc.

 

Morwen- step #1:  clear job description, which needs some blanks filled, i.e. staff jobs

            Step #2: process for addressing when a member does not fulfill these descriptions.

 

Question:  how does it get identified

 

Wolf – if there is one person who has an issue with someone else, it is not council, it is interpersonal.  They should address their own issue and can come to council for help.

 

Morwen – it could be a one on one that could affect the whole group.

 

Morwen – if it is between two people and it is more than they go work it out and it continues to affect the group.  What is our process.  Do we ask them to have a mediated conversation?

 

Jimi – to back up, like Wolf said, between two individuals – one on one, any more than that, it is not personal anymore. 

 

Patrick – if an individual is causing problems with a few it is more than likely that the rest of council has seen the dynamic.

 

Morwen – if even one person has a problem we have to do something, but not same as more than one person has a problem.

 

Wolf – there could be an interpersonal issue that council feels but does not affect council, if there are no bad vibes in council then it is not an issue in council.

 

Jimi – goes back to mission, if it is one person, that part of our job is that you go deal with it and don’t bring it to the circle.    Like I have said, please come to me if you have a problem with something.  If you don’t come to me, it’s not my problem.  If we all say that to each other and take that responsibility and say that in the job description, it covers it.

 

Peter – I have said, I would like us all to assume we all have the best intentions and if we think someone said something it is our job to go check and clear it with you. 

 

Morwen – how about we have the preamble that we are operating in trust and multiple assumption of best interests.  We ask that people take responsibility for their own interpersonal issues with each other.  Agree to disagree as long as we work together.  We as council offer for each other witnessing or mediation or support if requested or needed.  Any two people can request a formal review process of any council member’s performance in regards to the council.  And we would use the self review process for that. 

 

Sylvia – how does that include someone’s way of being even though they are a hard worker?

 

Morwen – if we have a job description that says all that stuff in the preamble then behavior that does not fit that does not fit the job description

 

Jimi – council process for resolution can work so long as someone does not feel ambushed or ganged up on.  If it gets like that, that person who is in the minority have an advocate for them in the resolution process.  Even two people accusing one, is serious. 

 

Morwen – we should build that right in

 

Wolf – something that would be a little bit clearer.  5 step process:

1. person calling council sets beautiful space
2. sit across from each other with talking stick
3. repeat back what they have heard – reflection
4. zero chief- witness holds the protocol
   
   1. don’t look into each others eyes
   2. repeat back to satisfaction
   3. don’t throw arrows
   4. protocol of questions

                                                               i.      what happened?

                                                             ii.      How did it make me feel?

                                                            iii.      How did I create this?

                                                           iv.      What am I learning from it

                                                             v.      What do I want from myself

                                                           vi.      What do I want from you?

 

Sylvia – this belongs in the toolbox as something that can be used.

 

Jimi – I’ve used that but with the eye contact.  Very good

 

Patrick – I like creating sacred space.  OAC has varying levels of resolving conflict depending on how deep.

 

Jimi – the zero chief is like the feather holder who has to be neutral.  In order to create a safe environment, that person has to be neutral.

 

Morwen – useful to say here is a tool that can be used for the resolution process and the people can have some options around that.  Question is:  who will request it, who is requested of, etc?

 

We want to promote a culture of conflict resolution to deal with problems rather than avoid. 

 

One on one problem – putting some attitude type things in our job description.  We encourage one on one to be solved on their own and we have tools to provide.

 

More on One problem – request for formal review would trigger someone to be an ally in that process of the person being questioned.

 

Padme – what if it is all against one?

 

Morwen – it is my hope that someone could step up to do it.

 

Jimi – this is to protect the process

 

Peter – is this to protect the process or the person?

 

Morwen – it is more so that this person, although being challenging, there is someone who is holding a view that they have good intentions.  Purpose is to reduce the level of charge to help seek a positive outcome.  If everyone feels that it is a problem, the person will probably leave, but that we do it with integrity.

 

Peter – that’s why I said that I want us to assume positive intent.

 

Morwen – to have a formal mechanism to support the person so it does not ripple out as a stop gap.  We want the departure or whatever to happen in as best way as possible.

 

Padme – ideally we would be addressing our concerns before it got to that point anyway.

 

Jimi – monkeywrench – what if it is one person having a problem with what someone else did that was not against them.  It is not interpersonal but it is about how the member represents council.

 

Patrick – possibly take it case by case depending on what it is.

 

Jimi – yes it is one on one but not interpersonal. 

 

Missy – three types: one on one interpersonal

                                    One on one as a council job

                                    Multi on one

Morwen – multi on one: to request a formal review.

                        Who does the request for review go to?

 

Jimi – it goes to a board development committee.

 

Wolf – that could be a good filter

 

Morwen – mainly we want to be thoughtful and have integrity and that we can’t be accused of it being personal when its not.

 

Missy – so we need the review process now?

 

Morwen – I know what process that Jimi is talking about.  We have the beginning of something. 

 

Jimi – once problem is identified, they agree on a process of choices.  Sticky point could be when someone does not want to resolve or not wanting to pick a process to deal with it. 

 

Morwen – mandatory to choose a process and do the resolution.  So now we need a board development committee

 

Morwen – we decided the basic shape of the job description

                        We decided on what circumstances reviews would be triggered

                        Chose who would handle that

                        Chose a board development committee would decide tools and review process.

 

Morwen – on situation on one on one board functioning piece.  What I want to say is that given the background of trust, once someone told someone else, it is now two on one rather than one on one. 

 

Patrick- I have really found that we are really good about doing those kind of check in things. 

 

Missy – trust two ways as a council member – trust of what is told to be in best interest of group and each of us are entrusted to seek the truth rather than foster ‘gossip’ or hearsay.

 

Morwen – a committee to collect tools and document and compile it all.

 

Peter – I love you all!

 

COMMITTEES

 

Morwen – missing on list handout is communications committee

 

Last year, kitchen was a semi-committee (under Operations)

 

This list is based on feedback forms.  Lots of people felt that they had lots of info and wanted to work on it.  So thus a committee could be created. 

 

IE:  kitchen:

            Needs to identify local cook

            Needs to identify local food source and transport

            Would be good to have food vendors available onsite for breakfast and lunch

I thought it would be good to have committee guided by council but with community members helping.  I think, step up and work or don’t criticize and we need to provide the work outlet.

 

Same feelings for ritual tech committee.  Lots of experience in community.  Ritual piece was folded into program committee.  I think we should separate it out and programming be workshops and schedule, affinity groups and services, and ritual tech be separate.  Provides more opportunities to plug in.

 

Jimi – Operations is management of inventory and working with team leaders on supplies needs and obtainment.  Huge issues are getting things there as people won’t deliver food, etc.  There is some overlap between committees working together.

 

Morwen – Operations – physical materials, logistics, etc.

                        Programming – registration, schedule, workshops, affinity groups, service groups, orientation.

                        Marketing/PR/Communication – large piece of work, website,

 

Patrick – looks like we need 5 committee chairs

 

Morwen – I propose that those 5 chairs be council members and that there may be other council members on these committees.  Clearly some will have to coordinate more heavily.

 

Patrick – wasn’t there someone who was going to cook?

 

Jimi – last year second cook stepped up to head cook, and dana mari stepped up to second cook.

Getting supplies challenge number 2, kitchen number 3 challenge

 

Peter – ideas on people to be tabled for later

 

Morwen – also board development – 6 committees total

 

Morwen – if committees are functioning well then don’t need council to oversee everything.

 

Patrick – do we need to choose now?

 

Morwen – does this make sense as how to organize the work. 

 

Call for questions?  None

Call for concerns?  None further

People chose committees:

 

Peter – web or tech, operations

Jimi – operations or consultant to food, board development

James – ritual tech

Sylvia – chair communications

Patrick – chair kitchen

 

Padme – if you chair what are you doing?

 

Jimi – cat herding, note taking, reporting to council and that is just a start

 

Morwen – calling meetings, making sure there are notes, participating in the coordination meetings, bringing info back to Council.

 

Who wants to chair what?

Morwen – chair program committee, co-chair board development participate in ritual tech, board development

Wolf – co chair communications, participate in ritual

James – co-chair ritual tech

Sylvia – co-chair communications, input to programming

Patrick – chair kitchen

Peter – help communications, co-chair operations

Missy- co chair board development, participate in ritual and program

Padme – ritual tech chair, programming, willing to do whatever

Jimi- co chair operations, participate in web or tech

 

CHAIRS

Communications – Sylvia & Wolf

Kitchen – Patrick

Ritual Tech – James & Padme

Operations – Jimi & (possible Peter)

Program - Morwen

Board Development – Morwen & Missy (NOTE: we later changed the name of this committee back to Organization Development, as it was before)

 

PARTICIPATE

Communications - Peter van Gorder with call to community

Kitchen – Jimi, Roger, Sylvia & Padme with Menu suggestions, suggestion of Susan as resource (call to community)

Ritual tech – Missy, Patrick, Morwen Wolf (suggested to invite Jasper)

Operation – will invite from community (barefoot steve, raven, Rafael, ruffles, etc)(wolf requests including the grove of the ancients in operations picture)

Board Development Committee – Jimi, Peter

Programming – Sylvia, Padme, Missy

 

Jimi – in communications piece – we need better communication process onsite and between committees before the event and who is covering that?

 

Patrick – we underutilized the staff discussion list, we should use this more this year.

 

Jimi – communications that were identified by Wolf is one kind, it also means on site, on lists,

 

Patrick – for on site, I think stuff like bulletin boards, info kiosk, announcements at dinner, required dinner, etc.  Seen too much and too little

 

Morwen – ways with communication onsite with larger community is program committee because they will have to do those kinds of things with some inter committee coordination.

 

Jimi – stuff like the radios and staff communications = operations

 

Padme – I would add that it feels important to find good ways for people to communicate with us pre gathering.  So that it is a two way street.  Ways for people to plug in that way. 

 

Morwen – we setup a thing that was council @  and anyone could send an email and suggest. 

 

Patrick – more information on website to the email for council

 

Jimi – have a question:  how about having some kind of living blog on the site, but not on the main list. 

 

Padme – how about a chat room? 

 

Morwen – how about the forum idea.  Like a bulletin board forum with threads split up. 

 

Peter – being a web guy.  I was thinking earlier that it would be great to have more than the email only list and to get to a threaded board system with an account.  Having threads for fun stuff, live community, and problem ones.

 

Padme – a lot of people are on tribe.  Firefamily tribe is dead.  We can utilize this and it is threaded.

 

Peter – perhaps with a registration you get an email inviting you to tribe and I can shepherd getting it working.

 

Patrick – don’t want to spread too thin.  Only one place.

 

Morwen – let’s use tribe that is all set up.  Our website has a staff login for keeping some of our information.  Need to talk to Tao to get logged in there.

 

Patrick – link to tribe from website

Jimi – tribe – in terms of how we post , can we request that people identify who they are.  So that we can translate transparency so that an argument or posting requires you to post your name. 

 

Peter – we can have a policy that to post a complaint or suggestion that they have to identify and moderator can post that info.  Yes, we’ll satisfy that.

 

OFFICER ELECTION

 

Morwen – legally we need a pres, treasurer, clerk. Jasper has agreed to continue as treasurer.  Role of president or chair has to do with being the uber-cat herder.  Possibly for two people, not one.  Clerk position is the person who is charged with maintaining the record of the organization’s functioning, particularly around policies.  Not necessarily all the detailed notes.  Only legal requirement is records of our annual meeting of who was there.  For ourselves we want more of a record than that, and of our key decisions.  Clerk not always to take the notes, but compile, organize, and then to webmaster.  Aka Secretary. 

 

James – president just needs to legally preside over annual meeting. 

 

Morwen – I think of it as to keep things moving and keep on track as much as possible.

 

Sylvia and Padme – nominate Morwen as president. 

 

Morwen – Patrick and Morwen willing to do it.

 

Jimi – proposal that Morwen and Patrick as co chairs

 

Morwen – clerk has been Una and we need to ask her to pass it on.

 

James –willing to clerk

 

Jimi- proposal Morwen & Patrick as co pres, Jasper as treasurer and James as clerk

 

James – Jasper is treasurer because of registrar

 

Morwen – Jasper and I made separate job descriptions for treasurer and registrar.  Jasper will write checks and balance statements and produce final annual statement.  Devra will handle registration and do deposits.

 

Jimi – call for concerns

 

NONE

 

CONSENT!!!!

WE FINISHED 15 MINUTES EARLY!!!!

 

 

Sunday- Phoenix Fire planning

<