[TheThinkTank] Policy or Process for Removing Collective Members
veganboyjosh at gmail.com
veganboyjosh at gmail.com
Sat Mar 21 08:58:04 PDT 2009
i believe our bylaws state that board members can be removed by
super-majority vote of the board (2/3, if memory serves) or if a board
member misses enough board meetings.
that said, someone taught me long ago that when dealing with or reprimanding
people's behavior in a workplace--and our organizations are workplaces, even
though a lot of us don't get paid--when discussing inadequate performance,
or unacceptable behavior, it's important to make the issue the behavior,
lack of performance, etc, and not the person. it's not the person you have a
problem with, it's their lack of positive energy, or presence of negative
this way, (so long as the offense wasn't one which banishment is the final
solution) at least there's a chance that the person will change and remain a
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Sam Santos <lalato at gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing we do is we post all of the things we need volunteers for on our
> wiki. We then advertise that via an e-mail list (kinda like this ThinkThank
> list) to our membership. We make sure that it's understood that no job is
> just for one person. Anyone can do any job, and, in fact, the more people
> that help out (even on the simplest tasks) the better. This promotes a
> volunteer culture and it helps build connections between members.
> We don't take those volunteer duties off the wiki list. We do put the list
> of names of folks that have volunteered to do it there. If someone slacks
> off, we will try to hold them accountable by pointing out that they
> committed to it. If the person (or persons) continue to slack off, we
> remove their name from that task on the wiki. And then we advertise again
> that we need volunteers for that task.
> It doesn't have to involve a lot of drama. It's just a list of tasks that
> need to get done. If someone gets hurt feelings because they're slacking
> off. That's a personal issue outside of the volunteer tasks. I hate to say
> it, but there isn't always a way to give people this kind of information in
> a way that won't make them upset.
> That doesn't mean the person gets kicked out of the collective. It just
> means that they aren't assigned that task anymore.
> If you need a more formal process... you could always bring task
> reassignments to a vote at your regular meetings. Might make for a much
> longer meeting, but it would give your group a chance to air things out in a
> more public forum. The trick there is to not let things go crazy about
> something that might only be a minor grievance.
> Another way to do it is how I've done it at another organization (community
> radio station) where I volunteer. I'm currently sort of a co-chair of the
> rock/pop genre (basically every flavor of rock from bonnie prince billy to
> bon jovi). I've only ever been to one meeting, but my co-chair goes to
> most of the meetings. I do some of the work (cateloging music, making sure
> all the new stuff is available to DJs, and my co-chair does some of the
> other stuff).
> Honestly, the station would be better served with one person that could
> handle everything and go to all the meetings. But, we're making it work as
> best we can with our available volunteer time. Maybe that's a model you
> guys can shoot for. Maybe instead of trying to replace the slackers...
> just add people that will help with the tasks. If the slackers can do a
> small part, the other helpers can handle the rest. Between the group,
> you'll get the task completed.
> One downside I've noticed to this approach is that if I can't volunteer one
> week... all of the things I normally will definitely not get done. It's
> not like my co-volunteer is picking up the slack (pardon the pun). ;-)
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Macho Philipovich <macho at resist.ca>wrote:
>> maybe i'm misunderstanding the situation, but if people aren't following
>> through on the tasks they commit to, couldn't they just be approached to see
>> why, and to see if something could be arranged that works better for them?
>> you could also let them know in as non-guilt-tripping a way as possible
>> that the collective is really counting on them, and that if they're too busy
>> or just feel like shirking it would really benefit the shop for them to let
>> someone else step in who's able to commit.
>> the only rule we have that gets you an immediate boot at our shop is
>> physically violent behaviour. even for stuff like fucked up
>> racist/classist/sexist shit, we try our best to work it out by
>> communicating, so i'm not sure i see the need for booting someone just for
>> being a flake.
>> Thethinktank mailing list
>> Thethinktank at bikecollectives.org
>> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
>> TheThinkTank-leave at bikecollectives.org
>> To manage your subscription, plase visit:
> Thethinktank mailing list
> Thethinktank at bikecollectives.org
> To unsubscribe, send a blank email to
> TheThinkTank-leave at bikecollectives.org
> To manage your subscription, plase visit:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Thethinktank