RRC Archives

captain static wrote:... deserves a straight, simple, answer. Here it is -.... RRGCC Board members are not directly elected by climbers because the original founders of the RRGCC chose to use the "non-membership" model in setting up the organization. This is a common model for small non-profits. The way I like to explain it is that the RRGCC is a company, not a government. When I have time after Rocktoberfest, I can get into the benefits of the "non-membership" model if you like.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/models.html

if that is the applicable link, maybe you could just highlight the pertinent clause?

Another shit thread by Douchey McDouche.

You know what, the questions been asked. Choose to respond with an actual answer or don't. So for all of you haters, when the CC decides to follow the Gunks model and charge you for climbing or if they decide to sell the PMRP and have it developed into condos you'll have nobody to blame but yourself. Its all because they at this point, are unaccountable. There is no chance for recall and if they chose to close the gate and not let anyone in, they could. They could absconde with the land, the money and all of your hard work and there'd be nothing you could do about it.

To combat all of these possibilities all that has to happen is that the people who actually do all of the work could have an actual voice in the decision making proccess. Do I have to explain the benifits of a representative goverment?

I don't disagree with what the bod does. I don't even want to change the people on the bod. I just want a little accountability. You can't fault that.

What was that about Red Herrings and Strawmen?

Since you seem to like technicalities, your question is worded incorrectly. Why are you not asking, "Why did the original founders of the RRGCC choose to use the "non-membership" model when writing the By-Laws of the organization." Then your follow up would be, "Can the by-laws be changed?" If the answer to that question is yes, you would follow with a well thought out argument for why the by-laws should be changed giving plenty of examples on how it would help the coalition more than it would hurt it. Since you failed these 3 basic examples of logic, you cannot serve on the BOD. Simply whining over and over about elections isn't going to get you anywhere. I think we are still waiting to find out who these mystery people are who have the time, desire, and ability to help the coalition in a major way who have attended several meetings, volunteered, and then were told to never attend another meeting and their volunteer efforts were not wanted.

" Do I have to explain the benifits of a representative government?"

uh. yeah. and please use examples. citing your philosophy 101 textbook makes for nice coffee talk, but it doesn't speak to the horrible things done under the auspices of a democracy or republic.

personally i prefer czars > elections for non-profits. especially in this case as the leadership is generated through fidelity and practice rather than discursive representation.

i'm a jingoist.

It's really sort of the standard for this type of org. Do we vote for BOD members on Access fund, Sierra Club, IMBA, or countless others? As Sax mentions, it was created by people much smarter than us over a decade ago.

Could it be changed, perhaps? We could develop standards for voting members and who is unable to vote, requirements and processes to be considered for the positions, provide mechanisms for keeping track of all those members, rewrite articles of incorporation, pay the fees to get it registered and approved by the state and IRS, and then develop fallout processes for the next batch of problems when some people obviously get blocked from voting. It's really just a lot more paperwork.

Not sure what the incentive to change all that is really. I kinda prefer the same tired conspiracy theory, it's comfortable and really enables the BOD to be very secretive and standoffish.

tbwilsonky wrote:" Do I have to explain the benifits of a representative government?"

One bad bit about democracy on any scale in general is: those that want the job should not have it and those that should have it don't want it. The problem is the person believes that cost of campaigning at some point needs to be rewarded--hence corruption in politics.
The BOD should probably be composed of reluctant heroes that weigh the onus of everyday life against an honest effort on the BOD then decide that they can probably do it.
When the scale of government/ governance increases I favor republics and democracy.

Thank you Chuck. The reason that most small non-profits choose not to follow the membership model is because of the administrative burden it places on the organization and the costs that are associated with that burden. You cannot rely on volunteers to manage the database needed when you have a voting membership so you either have to hire an employee or hire a company to manage it. So the mundane answer to the question is that having direct elections for BOD members is cost prohibitive for a small non-profit.

Having new BOD elected by existing BOD members, as is done by the RRGCC, does not exclude proper governance. The people that have served on the Board and who currently serve on the Board represent a fairly broad spectrum of the community. Over the time that I have been involved the number of Board members has been increased and representation expanded. Also, the RRGCC has a strong history of strategic planning and incorporating the input of climbing community and stakeholders into its actions.

Clevis Hitch wrote:All of that is well and good but it doesn't even address the question of "why are there no direct elections?"

caribe wrote:Flow Chart:
Is it broken ─ yes ─► fix it
|
no
|
▼
don't fix it

captain static wrote:Also, the RRGCC has a strong history of strategic planning and incorporating the input of climbing community and stakeholders into its actions.

perfect.