Anonymous

Changes

From Pumping Station One
no edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:     
Understood. It was written this way because we really didn't want the Board to formally review and approve each event. 99.999% of events are fine, so this would add to Board workload and bureaucracy with little benefit. The intent was to keep the status quo as much as possible, but give the Board a "break glass in case of emergency" option to deal with the 0.001% that are problems. I would like to see a page not part of the official policy that informally states things that could make an event not OK. (E.g. public place of amusement tax -> we can't charge for admission for parties; lack of liquor license -> we can't sell drinks; insurance requirements around "events" -> parties should be OK, but we have to file a form with the insurer in advance, someone might need to pay a small amount of money, and we need to figure out if this will come out of one of the space's budgets, or if the organizer will need to pay for it.) Additionally, the policy was written like this to limit the Board's authority. We do not want the Board censoring events for content. This made it clear that the Board can step in only in very limited circumstances. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 07:23, 17 July 2015 (CDT)
 
Understood. It was written this way because we really didn't want the Board to formally review and approve each event. 99.999% of events are fine, so this would add to Board workload and bureaucracy with little benefit. The intent was to keep the status quo as much as possible, but give the Board a "break glass in case of emergency" option to deal with the 0.001% that are problems. I would like to see a page not part of the official policy that informally states things that could make an event not OK. (E.g. public place of amusement tax -> we can't charge for admission for parties; lack of liquor license -> we can't sell drinks; insurance requirements around "events" -> parties should be OK, but we have to file a form with the insurer in advance, someone might need to pay a small amount of money, and we need to figure out if this will come out of one of the space's budgets, or if the organizer will need to pay for it.) Additionally, the policy was written like this to limit the Board's authority. We do not want the Board censoring events for content. This made it clear that the Board can step in only in very limited circumstances. --[[User:Rdpierce|Rdpierce]] ([[User talk:Rdpierce|talk]]) 07:23, 17 July 2015 (CDT)
 +
 +
I get all that as well. My issue is that this wording expands "Issues Proper for a Vote of the Directors" by creating a subset under "to fulfill any obligations to ensure the health of the organization" and is in effect an amendment or addition to the bylaws. I believe this unnecessary and bad precedent.[[User:Mskilton|Mskilton]] ([[User talk:Mskilton|talk]]) 09:51, 17 July 2015 (CDT)
425

edits

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.