Whereas in the past the official membership list of the party has been inaccurately tracked, and whereas it is ultimately the treasurer’s job to track donations and membership fees,
Be It Resolved that by law 2.5.1 be amended to :
The official membership list will be maintained and managed by the treasurer.
First, if adopted, this new text should replace section 2.5 in its entirety. As proposed, it replaces 2.5.1, rendering 2.5.2 meaningless, but would leave 2.5.2 in place.
Second, I don't see the point of the motion. Under the current bylaws, if the Treasurer is willing and able to perform this duty, the President can appoint the Treasurer to act as Membership Chairperson. If not, the current bylaw is flexible in allowing someone else to take on this responsibility.
If it's a matter of trust, i.e. not trusting the President to perform according to the current bylaws (i.e. to appoint a capable Membership Chairperson), the new version just transforms the question of trust to the Treasurer, which is no improvement. Also, as Mike Bray points out, the Treasurer already has a heavy load.
Another point in favour of leaving 2.5 unchanged is that the President could appoint any capable and responsible member to be Membership Chairperson, which could offload some work from the Executive and get more people actively helping to run the Party.
The problem has been that the President has not done this job in the past. For the last several years the position of Membership Chairperson has not been appointed or occupied. Furthermore, it has happened that there have been conflicting lists within the party with no one person in charge of the list, with the leader, treasuerer and president each having conflicting lists.
I disagree that this puts an undo burden on the treasurer. The Treasurer must by current job definition receive all membership fees and can therefore best be trusted to keep track of the official membership list.
It is a simple task for the treasurer to send out the "official" list of who has paid and who hasn't and thus resolve any conflict over old lists that are floating about.
I did not think that 2.5.2 needed to be removed because in the future we may need a membership chair if needed.
The problem has been that the President has not done this job in the past. For the last several years the position of Membership Chairperson has not been appointed or occupied. Furthermore, it has happened that there have been conflicting lists within the party with no one person in charge of the list, with the leader, treasuerer and president each having conflicting lists.
I disagree that this puts an undo burden on the treasurer. The Treasurer must by current job definition receive all membership fees and can therefore best be trusted to keep track of the official membership list.
It is a simple task for the treasurer to send out the "official" list of who has paid and who hasn't and thus resolve any conflict over old lists that are floating about.
I did not think that 2.5.2 needed to be removed because in the future we may need a membership chair if needed.
I'll agree to disagree on the following points until resolved at Convention:
Advisability of changing a good procedure because it hasn't been adhered to in the past.
Whether the new guideline is intrinsically more likely to be adhered to than the old one.
Whether or not 2.5.1 conflicts with the amended 2.5.2.
However, I will add these further arguments against the proposed amendment:
The Treasurer is responsible for member status, fees, and donations, and I agree she should be responsible for making sure this information is correct in the member database. However, there's also a lot of work involved in maintaining current contact information based on response from newsletter and other communications, phone calls, etc., which do not involve the Treasurer at all.
Also, the technology we're using should be changed this year, from a shared spreadsheet to a web-accessible database with a CRM-based front end. Consistency checks need to be implemented. The Treasurer may not be the appropriate person to be in charge of this.
I trust Tobi-Dawne or her successor to figure out who the best person is for this job, in consultation with the Executive.
Will this put too much of a
Will this put too much of a burden on the treasurer position and discourage members from taking on this role?
First, if adopted, this new
First, if adopted, this new text should replace section 2.5 in its entirety. As proposed, it replaces 2.5.1, rendering 2.5.2 meaningless, but would leave 2.5.2 in place.
Second, I don't see the point of the motion. Under the current bylaws, if the Treasurer is willing and able to perform this duty, the President can appoint the Treasurer to act as Membership Chairperson. If not, the current bylaw is flexible in allowing someone else to take on this responsibility.
If it's a matter of trust, i.e. not trusting the President to perform according to the current bylaws (i.e. to appoint a capable Membership Chairperson), the new version just transforms the question of trust to the Treasurer, which is no improvement. Also, as Mike Bray points out, the Treasurer already has a heavy load.
Another point in favour of leaving 2.5 unchanged is that the President could appoint any capable and responsible member to be Membership Chairperson, which could offload some work from the Executive and get more people actively helping to run the Party.
The problem has been that the
The problem has been that the President has not done this job in the past. For the last several years the position of Membership Chairperson has not been appointed or occupied. Furthermore, it has happened that there have been conflicting lists within the party with no one person in charge of the list, with the leader, treasuerer and president each having conflicting lists.
I disagree that this puts an undo burden on the treasurer. The Treasurer must by current job definition receive all membership fees and can therefore best be trusted to keep track of the official membership list.
It is a simple task for the treasurer to send out the "official" list of who has paid and who hasn't and thus resolve any conflict over old lists that are floating about.
I did not think that 2.5.2 needed to be removed because in the future we may need a membership chair if needed.
The problem has been that the
The problem has been that the President has not done this job in the past. For the last several years the position of Membership Chairperson has not been appointed or occupied. Furthermore, it has happened that there have been conflicting lists within the party with no one person in charge of the list, with the leader, treasuerer and president each having conflicting lists.
I disagree that this puts an undo burden on the treasurer. The Treasurer must by current job definition receive all membership fees and can therefore best be trusted to keep track of the official membership list.
It is a simple task for the treasurer to send out the "official" list of who has paid and who hasn't and thus resolve any conflict over old lists that are floating about.
I did not think that 2.5.2 needed to be removed because in the future we may need a membership chair if needed.
I'll agree to disagree on the
I'll agree to disagree on the following points until resolved at Convention:
However, I will add these further arguments against the proposed amendment: