Talk:Board Policy on Events

This reads as the board giving itself voting authority and not as a policy. Mskilton (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2015 (CDT)

The policy is that the board has voting authority. Somebody needs the authority to say that an event is illegal, that it would kill our ambitions for 501(c)(3), that the advertising needs to be changed because it says we're doing something illegal, or that our insurance requires a separate endorsement to cover this so we need you to cover the extra cost. It makes sense for the Board to do this. We actually did have an issue in the past. Someone advertised an event that said we were selling liquor. (We have no liquor license, so this is very illegal.) A Board member asked the person to change it. Fortunately the person complied, because without the policy, the person could have ignored the Board. --Rdpierce (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2015 (CDT)

I fully understand why the policy was created. Just don't think it's written well.

IMO a policy should be definite. The short version could be: All events must be reviewed and approved by the board. A longer version: Events ab&c are prohibited. Events xy&z may be allowed with board approval. Mskilton (talk) 06:50, 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. --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.Mskilton (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2015 (CDT)

Wait, is this policy really supposed to be saying that the board can shut down events that are illegal? Do we really need a policy to say we can't do illegal things? For the 501(c)(3) thing, can't we just have a policy that simply says "Events that violate PS:1's ability to maintain 501(c)(3) status are prohibited." ? Justin (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2015 (CDT)

Things aren't that simple. Without this policy, nobody would have any authority to stop a proposed illegal event before it happened. You'd have to wait until it happened and then discipline the member and/or call the police. And yes, we have had a situation where this was needed. (A party put out advertisements saying they were selling alcohol. Fortunately they agreed to change the advertisement because the Board had no power at the time to do anything other than suggest.) Whether an event is or is not illegal may be subjective, and it makes sense for the Board to make that call. (Let's say a member insists that advertising a "suggested donation" of $2 per beer isn't really selling alcohol. The police will disagree, and the city will give PS:One a citation. The Board needs to say sorry but no.) And somebody needs the authority to say what jeopardizes 501(c)(3) and what doesn't; that stuff is complicated, and seeing as the Board are in regular communication with the law firm representing the space, they are most qualified. And certain kinds of events may have to be pre-approved. The Board has a relationship with the insurance agent, so they are the ones best qualified to work with both the member and the agent, and to determine whether the event is OK, whether it can't be held because the insurer refuses to cover it, or whether we just need to buy some extra insurance so that it is covered. This one policy does a lot, and yes, it is very much necessary. --Rdpierce (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2015 (CDT)

I'm ok with the policy. Just wish it was written like policy. The argument, we had to vote to give ourselves the authority to vote is weak and looks bad. The board has claimed the authority to regulate events, so claim it! Ok, now I've said the same thing 4 times, that's way more than enough.Mskilton (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2015 (CDT)