As with the Free Palestine Focus Campaign proposal, some of the goals (i.e. Pull people away from seeing the Democratic Party has a place to advocate for left-wing politics AND Build WCU + other independent political movements in SJC) in the No Votes for Genocide Focus Campaign proposal could be seen as being overly broad–goals that could be easily transferred to focus campaigns on other topics. And if that’s the case, how focused are we really being? And if we were to leave the goals as they are, what metrics would we be using? Goals should be measurable. How do we measure whether or not people see the Democratic Party as a place to advocate for left-wing politics? How do we measure movement building? What does success or failure look like under those metrics?
I think there may have been some confusion when Roby asked if anyone had responded to the last correspondence that was read off at the 2024-03-07 General Meeting. He was referring to Sacramento Valley Tenants Union, not LCIP. Since I didn’t hear from anyone on @WCU_Steering about it, I followed-up with Harpreet at the 2024-03-25 Working Meeting. No reply had been sent, so I just shot SVTU a short message on their Facebook account to thank them for reaching out. We should try to stay on top of these things because part of the reason WCU voted to approve an affiliation request form to join ATUN (Autonomous Tenants Union Network) was to get more access to other unions and organizers. So, it’s important for us to be responsive when people take the time to reach out to us.
Something to keep in mind is that if we have too many social events that are only for WCU members, we may be seen by the IRS as more of a social club than a social welfare organization (Source: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/social-welfare-organizations). Although, it might be trickier trying to facilitate a discussion in a larger group that includes other organizations like North Central Valley DSA. A way to deal with that could be to have co-facilitators lead discussions in breakout groups and then having everyone come back together to share. But that might be a lot for something that is intended to be a social event, not work. Also, in terms of location, it can be hard to find parking space at Valley Brew. Personally, I don’t think the food there is that great, but at the moment, I can’t think of another place that could accommodate a large party.
Going forward, I’d like to ask that agenda items and their associated documents be distributed at least 72 hours prior to a General Meeting to give membership time to formulate any comments, questions and suggestions.
“They shall also acknowledge and offer advice with respect to fundraising efforts initiated elsewhere in the organization.”–I don’t know if this comes across in the text, but I believe the intent of saying that the Treasurer would acknowledge fundraising efforts was to create oversight by requiring any fundraising efforts to be cleared by Chris first. For the sake of clarity, we may need to amend this proposed bylaw change.
DRAFTS (of what I may submit as an amendment to the proposed bylaw change): The Treasurer may initiate fundraising efforts or offer fundraising advice to others. Prior to the initiation of fundraising efforts from elsewhere in the organization, the Treasurer must give approval.
OR
The Treasurer may initiate fundraising efforts or offer fundraising advice to others. The Treasurer must provide acknowledgement of a fundraising effort, proposed from elsewhere in the organization, before it can commence.
OR
The Treasurer may initiate fundraising efforts or offer fundraising advice to others. The Treasurer will oversee fundraising efforts approved by the General Membership.
OR
The Treasurer may initiate fundraising or offer fundraising advice to others. The Treasurer will track fundraising efforts approved by the General Membership.
Here is what I was citing from Robert’s Rules of Order:
"If a motion has either been adopted or defeated during a meeting, and at least one member who voted on the winning side wants to have the vote reconsidered, such a member may make the motion to Reconsider.
This motion can only be made by a member who voted on the winning side. That is to say, if the motion was adopted, the motion to Reconsider can be made only by a member who voted in favor of the motion, or if the motion was defeated, then only by a member who voted against it. This makes sense because, if there is no such person, there is virtually no chance that the result of the vote will be any different on the second go-round. This motion can, however, be seconded by any member, no matter how he or she voted."