plan_9@riseup.net wrote:
> Thus far the FM Community Bicycle Workshop has been operating as a
> 501c3 through a fiscal agency agreement with a local non-profit. The
> agreement is for a limited time period so I have been working on our
> Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Tax forms. The crossroads were
> at with it though, is that we are set up to operate as a traditional
> collective (consensus, democratic decision making, non-authoritarian
> structure) with elements of Participatory Economics (we have worker
> councils set up). This doesn't seem to reconcile very cleanly with how
> the US wants non-profits to be structured with a traditional Board of
> Directors, Chair, Co-chair, Secretary, Treasurer, etc. So what I'm
> wondering is this: How do other groups that have a non-heirarchical
> organizational structure set up their bylaws and articles to reflect
> their values, yet be accepted as a legitimate by the state? I have
> been told by a few more non-standard organizations that they just set
> it up like "it's supposed to be" and then disregard it. I really don't
> want to do that since if it's on the books, we can be held accountable
> to it.
>
> These seem to be the logical options so far:
>
> 1. Collective as the Board of Directors.
> In this scenario we basically form the board using the collective
> members as board members and build our bylaws around our the rules and
> procedures that are outlined in our volunteer handbook. To get outside
> folks involved in this we could set up an advisory board that would
> give input but not make decisions that would meet something like once
> a quarter.
>
> 2. An Outside Board
> In this scenario we would form a board that would consist completely
> of outside individuals who are understanding of our mission and would
> represent the populations that we serve. The collective would serve
> the role of the executive director(s). In this situation we would be
> tasked with the day to day decisions of the FMCBW and have input into
> the Board of Directors but macro decisions such as funding, long term
> planning, would ultimately be decided by the Board of Directors. (This
> idea has already met with much opposition from the group so this is
> probably out)
>
> 3. A Mixed Board
> In this scenario we would form a board that would consist of some
> collective members and some outside community members. There could be
> checks and balances put into place to make sure that the collective
> continues to have real tangible input into the board of directors
> decision making. This would take some extra mechanics in our bylaws
> and is slightly non-standard in the non-profit world, (but is somewhat
> more standard in the business world) but in the end might be the best
> of both worlds if done correctly. For Example: We have a board of 9
> people, four of which were collective members and five of which were
> outside community members that would represent the populations that we
> serve. We could run the board conservatively (as in more resistance to
> change, not politically of course) where we would put into our bylaws
> that we there must be Consensus U-3 to make binding decisions. This
> would enable the collective to block any proposals, given that they
> have solidarity on the issue, that the board may make that might be
> against the interest or the intent of the collectives mission. This
> method would also stand for electing new outside board members,
> ensuring that the integrity and intent of the organization would stay
> in line with the collectives mission. The numbers and methods are up
> in the air, of course, I was just using this as an example.
>
> These all have pros and cons to them. The collective as the board we
> would continue to have autonomous control over what we do and how we
> operate and would allow us to make decisions "light and fast" but at
> the loss of credibility, resources and the ever important perspective
> of the community.
> Having an outside board would make it easier to propose "self-serving"
> ideas, such as paying us wages, funding outside training, going to
> conferences, spending shop money to renumerate the collective. Plus it
> spreads the risk, it allows input from veterans in the non-profit
> world as well as access to their resources without begging. It would
> give us an air of credibility to some institutions that might take us
> "not so seriously". It also allows us to focus on building bikes,
> teaching bike maintenance, and developing our programs. The risk is
> that we don't have control over the board at all and are totally at
> their whims. We can put a good board in place that understands our
> values and mission but they are responsible for voting in new board
> members, and if their judgment isn't the same as ours, there is the
> potential that a few years down the road there could be a group of
> people directing us in a way we might not agree with at all, and could
> possibly disband the collective and appoint a director.
> The Mixed Board has potential to have the best of both worlds if
> executed correctly. If executed incorrectly it could possible result
> in some of the negative possibilities of both the the others. It would
> probably also take a little longer to make decisions, but since we are
> already operating fairly well we probably are done making rapid
> decisions.
>
> Sorry for the ridiculously long post, I decided not to chop it down in
> case this info is useful for the seemingly many new bike collectives
> that are in the works right now.
>
> Andrew FM Community Bicycle Workshop
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Thethinktank mailing list
>
Thethinktank@bikecollectives.org>
http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank-bikecollectives.org>
>