Compared to writing it, reading it should be a piece of cake!

I posted a comment on the link. Shoujld I have posted it here?

yes, please

I  hope we will more time than usual for the vote, as it may take some time to get my head around this.

But at first glance I think there may be a problem with "best practices for non-profit, small organizations and web forums." We may need to modify this statement with something as I can imagine "best practice is relative without further conditions.

Well done.

I see nothing problematic in the document and appreciate the transparency processes that are built in to the governence of the site.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hm... on the whole it sounds okay, but there are a few things that I don't like.

The liason issue as developed strikes me as problematic.

The Church picks the liason sounds good in theory yet we have seen how the United Church official responds here at WonderCafe.ca and not been impressed by it.

While it does bear striking similarity to some of the characteristics of a legacy corporation I think we would not be served by asking the United Church to consider this as one of its responsibilities.

I would think that the community itself could find representatives from the United Church if that was considered vital.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Why would the liason have to be necessarily from the United Church?

RevJohn, the liaison is a specific conduit at this point into the GC staff.   It is for the transition from the exisiting site to the new.  It supports information such as blocking lists, use of the logo, and most importantly, redirects from the original site..   

I do anticipate that those who are members or ministers of the united church of canada will be in various other roles; however, the goal of the liaison has been worked through as part of the usage of material currently under copyright with the church.

Alex, The poit was it wasn't best practices for corporations or best practices for charitable organizations.  We are a small,  non-profit, web forum prganizatio.

Dcn.Jae  - because the statement reads "in recognition of Wondercafe2's historical connection with the United Church" ???

I would be all for someone like Aaron volunteering to continue to bring us news and happenings from GCO - however I would be against GCO (or other denominations for that matter) appointing someone to the Council.  GCO has had ample opportunity to support and nurture here - other than Aaron , I have not seen it.  We have been shown the door- with not so much as a 'bon voyage' or 'safe travels'.

Could a sentence be added to the first paragraph - along the lines of "The Council represents  the Wondercafe2 community" ?

Hi Dcn.Jae,

According to the document we have been invited to critique the liason with the United Church is a nod to the historical connection to the United Church.

It is not unusual for incorporated entities that have begun under the oversite of The United Church of Canada to find themselves in a place where the needs of the corporation are much more immediate than the Church can provide because of its own bureaucracy.

For example, St. Paul's College of The University of Waterloo recently became a legacy corporation meaning it is now independant of The United Church of Canada.  This was made necessary by the desire of the College to grow and the fact that the governence of the College was ultimately in the hands of Hamilton Conference of The United Church of Canada.

If it wanted to buy or sell land it needed permission from Waterloo Presbytery.

If it wanted to do extensive upgrades and required a loan to pay for the work it needed permission from Waterloo Presbytery.

Quite frankly, Presbytery doesn't move quickly so some of the opportunities that would have been in St. Paul's best interest would be lost due to the protracted nature of Presbytery.

St. Paul's is now a legacy corporation in that it is independant of The United Church of Canada and yet still wishes to have a connection with the United Church.  Waterloo Presbytery women's groups still (I understand) provide financial support to the College.

I expect WonderCafe2 would like to maintain some connection to the United Church if only for our own convenience.  The United Church of Canada is willing to place a redirect from the homepage here to the new homepage of Wondercafe2.  Which means anyone arriving late to the party will be able to find us without our having to spend a lot of our own dollars in advertizing.

Which is why a liason with the United Church might be sought.

There is provision in the document for laisons from other denominations based on their support.

So, there is a provision for a liason from the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches in Canada based on their willingness to support, promote or link to Wondercafe2.

If other denominations do not want such a connection they will not require a liason.

At present The United Church of Canada is the only denomination that has said it will provide support so they are the only ones being offered a liason.  Any other denominations/groups willing to provide support will have the same privilege of a liason offered to them.

Corporation wise it is very above board and very commonplace.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you John for your explanation. It is appreciated. Based on the history of this place, plus the link which will be maintained in the future, I agree that having a liason to the UCCanada is a wise idea. My question, though, was - why would that person necessarily have to be from the UCCanada. In other words, why could a person without UCCanada membership not serve in that role. Personally, I have no interest in so serving, but there might be someone else so inclined which is why I ask the question.

I agree with the document as it stands.

It is relatively short, yet clear and concise, as it should be.

My appreciation and gratitude to those who composed it!

Jae, the representative is someoe who works for the United Church of Canada General Council.   It s not someone from the community who is asking to represent their denomination....that you can do in the community.

Ah, okay, understood. Well, that's a good idea, then, so long as someone on your GCO is willing to accept that role. Perhaps there should be added a note on what happens if no one from your GCO is willing to serve in that capacity.

Thanks RevJohn on behalf of all the admins.

Interesting, dont think we put that in, did we.  Good catch, and I would anticipate any such mod would be a minor adjustment.  (Let's see what Mendalla and Chansen says)

Jae probably has a point about what happens if the UCCan does not, or cannot, designate a liaison. We  might reword the liaison piece as "...the United Church of Canada shall, at its discretion, designate..." allowing for them to choose to not have one. Thoughts?

Good thought. Pinga is correct. That would be fairly easy to work in.

Mendalla

That is fine by me, Mendalla.  Again, minor wording change which matches the intent.

Hi Dcn.Jae,

As Pinga explains there is hope to use some material which is owned by The United Church of Canada in some way.

It is akin to going to our neighbour and asking to borrow a tool of somekind and the neighbour asking us what we want that tool for.

As Pinga explains membership in the UCCanada isn't necessary.  Employment by the UCCanada is.  We employ individuals in various capacities who do not belong to the UCCanada.

For example, Chris Pullenayegem is a member of the Christian Reformed Church and serves the UCCanada as an Animator for New Ministry Development Church in Mission(Church planting).

Grace and peace to you.

John

Thank you Mendalla, and yes, that sounds good, or perhaps, "...may, at its discretion, designate..."

Edit: Spelling.

Very appreciative of your tough work.

I am awed by the careful work being done by these volunteers.  Thank you.

This reads like a well thought through document overall. It appears to cover the essentials .   The comments above suggesting revisions in wording meet with my approval as they help bring a bit more clarity to the document.  

Good work

a couple of thoughts

1) specify how folks are nominated- that it is electronic-ie niminated by sending a wondermail or whatever

2) minutes of council-add that they will be publicly posted on WC2

3) is there an upper limit to the time one can serve in council roles? ie after 6 years position is declared open. If no suitable replacement is found previous person can fill this position but new bodies will be sought annually-  wording would need tweaked.

Tabitha

""Active” is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community.""

This reads to me that an active person is doing all these things. I think it is a punctuation issue.

I assume that what you mean is that an active person does one or more of these things, not all.

Otherwise, I agree with others about the wording related to UCC general council input

And good job to the team. Thanks

That's certainly the intent, lastpointe.

The use of "or" rather than "and" does imply that. How would you recommend it be changed

Perhaps
"Active" is defined as being a visible member of the wondercafe2 community.
This can be seen through regular postings ( at least monthly) and or being involved in wondercafe2 community activities and or contributing "in kind" or financially to the community and or other activities related to the wondercafe 2 community.

Seems wordy but it's a stab at it.

Lastpointe, I prefer the original.  Or (and not 'and') implied one of those was sufficient for me.  Maybe a colon right after the as would help?

"Active” is defined as: posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community.

Okay, here are some more of my thoughts...

"To form Council, the community is asked for nominations.  After a suitable nomination period of not less than 5 days, the nominations are closed and Council selects new members from the nominations."

1. Will the community be told as to what the nomination period is?

2. Council selects the new members...

a. why not have the community vote amongst the nominees?

b. if not a free election, how do nominees get chosen to be on the Council when as of yet there is no existing Council to so choose them?

"The slate of nominated Council members shall be confirmed annually by a vote of the community."

Personally, I hate the idea of voting for a slate. I've done so as a member of a club I used to be in. The reason I loathe it is this: it doesn't allow me to support some people on the slate and not others, which is something I may wish to do. For example, say there are 9 people on the slate, seven of whom I think are doing an excellent job, two of whom I do not. If I am to vote on the slate, I would much rather have the opportunity to vote on each Council member as a separate individual than lumping the bad in with the good.

"“Active” is defined as posting regularly, being involved in community activities, contributing in kind or financially, or other activities related to the community."

Please define "regularly." Also, I don't like the idea of someone who only contributes financially having the same say as someone who is a regular poster.

The nomination period would be announced by the admin team (for the first Council) and the Chair (for subsequent Councils) and the announcement would specify when nominations open and when they close. So, yes, the community will know what the nomination period is.

The slate method was chosen because that is how many church and other non-profit boards are elected, even in UU'ism which has democracy as one of our principles. In fact, I believe it is how many corporate boards work. Unless you can elucidate a clear reason not to follow this standard practice besides it not being your preference, I don't really see a reason not to do it this way. Individual election for each position can be (a) unwieldy to run and (b) lead to a lot of campaigning and bad blood which is not conducive to community building.

Lastpointe has suggested revisions to the definition of "Active" upthread which includes a definition of regularly. See what you think of her definition upthread.

Mendalla

Slates by nature do not work like that. Usually each position is up for reelection on an individual basis. That is the practice in all community based not for profit boards, that I have ever participated in.

However the outgoing board usually puts out a slate, or a list of indorsed candidates. The slate is not part of the bylaws, nor does it need to be.

Fair enough.

Really? How do you know that to be true? It seems like a rather subjective statement. I've never experienced voting on a slate in any church that I've been a part of, and I'm speaking of some 45 years of church experience. The churches I've been in have elected people to positions on an individual basis. Voting on a slate does not give as true a representation of the voters' views as does voting on an individual basis. You suggest that voting on individuals is too complicated, however it's done in many churches, clubs, etc. not to mention communities, cities, provinces, and nations. As for campaigning, it need not damage a community. Indeed, it can strengthen a community when all afterward get behind the people who have been elected.

It's a step in the right direction, although I feel a regular poster is someone who posts certainly more than once a month. And I still dislike the idea of saying that someone who gives financially is on equal status.

Any comments as to the first point I made, on how the initial Council may be put together?

That's not how we operate, Alex. We do take nominations from the floor but the process is that nominating puts forward their slate and we vote on that slate, not per position. A nomination from the floor requires a motion and a separate vote to add that person to the slate so in that case there is a vote for a person/position. And my church is incorporated as a non-profit corporation on its own since UU'ism has no denominational structure like that of the UCCan so we are, in essence, a community-based not-for-profit ISTR my UCCan operating similarly. Given that size of our unified board at the time, going per position would have taken a whole congregational meeting unto itself .

Anyone from other polities care to comment?

Mendalla

Perhaps we should work into the document a fair representation system. For example, of the nine Council seats, we could say something like...

5 positions shall be filled by members of the UCCanada

3 positions shall be filled by members of other Christian denominations

1 position shall be filled by a by someone of a different faith community.

I feel invisible. I raised 3 points above but they have yet to be acknowleged.

Disagree. We are meant to be independent of faith community. We should not be electing the board based on faith communty as that removes that independence.

Mendalla

I'll sweep up and have a look. It's hard to respond to everyone esp. when I was away from the thread for 3 hours because of church and a church meeting.

Mendalla

At my church, we don't elect people by slate. We vote on individuals. When a church office is available, the pastor announces so at a business meeting, then accepts nominations over the course of a couple of weeks to a month. Then we members get together again in another business meeting, the pastor reads the nominees, and we vote by way of secret ballot. In this way we elect to office the men who we want to be serving, and can keep away from office those we do not.

Independent? Really?

*ahem* strong ties to the UCCanada *ahem*

Those ties are appropriate, however don't then claim that we're independent.

When was the last time your UU had an election Mendalla?

. Most churches end up not holding elections , because their is only one candidate. Then sometimes the AGM will confirm the board in a single vote. Incommunity based orgs that do have contested elections their is often a motion to make the election of a board member unanimous. Perhaps that is why you may be confused

1. I think we just left the actual method in the hands of Council. Our intention for the first round was to have threads for each position but that would not stop the first Council from doing something else when they start filling seats. If we are to codify this, I'd like to hear suggestions.

2. Good point. I'll make that specific and we will have a forum for board business where stuff like that will be posted.

3. We did not put anything about tenure in. Given the small base we are working with and that some of the positions (Admin, Treasurer) require some specialized knowledge, we don't want to be in the position my fellowship is right now of running out of people to fill seats.

Mendalla

Okay, perhaps I am using wrong language. We are confirming the board as nominated by the nominating committee every ACM. We have never had an "election" and generally have no reason to. Only once have we had a nomination from the floor in my time and that was handled as an amendment to the motion because she was not contesting any of the nominated positions, but asking to take an "at large" seat.

Based on your comments, I would like to hear how you would rewrite the process if you were doing it.

Mendalla

Hi folks, Sunday afternoon on a beautiful spring day.  It's awesome to see the input.

I am driving today to grab a ferry, so only a few minutes to do a quick post after reading and pondering the posts from my phone.

1.  A forum has been created on the new site for posting things such as public minutes.  Tabitha, if it isn't included that council minutes would be public, it was intended.   

2.  Re max limit of position

I am not in support of planned obsolence.  Moderation skills, especially solid ones are a skill set, as is administration.  I could support a recommendation that after the initial 3 years that the board should rotate at least one person / year.  To be honest, I would prefer that be just best practice related to the running of the board than being too detailed on these type of items.

3.  re nominations.

hmm, my presumption was a response to the nomination thread.  If you feel that it needs to be articulated then it is an easy addition to the document if mendalla and chansen agree.  I was thinking more how other orgs run.  You send in a nomination however you choose to do so.

4.  re nomination, then slate for approval

I am of a very strong opinion that we do not wish to run elections for the very reason that mendalla indicated, as well as in a virtual space it is relatively simple to create fake accounts, or ask folks to join for a week to vote for you.  I will place trust in the council to ensure that we have the right folks to be on the council .  This is in act how our church and any volunteer boards that I have been a part of.  You present nominations, the council reviews (or a nominating committee), approaches the nominees, makes decsions.  It is not a vote war, nor is a popularity vote.  

From a governance standpoint, the UCCan has no more say in how we run the site than anyone else. Their liaison is non-voting and there is no provision that any position must be filled by UCCan members. In fact, as you know, only one of the current team is UCCan and her only barely. They could, technically, yank their permission to use the WC logo and other UCCan-owned imagery but Council could, at that point, kick their liaison off and draft a new logo and name. We are independent in that they have no control over the site and their inclusion is by WC2's choice, not theirs.

Mendalla

Currently we have an atheist, a UU and an UCC as 100% of the existing board based on the skills of the existing individuals.  We have named and voted on the responsibility of the various board members, including admin, moderator & treasurer.  There was no reference to any denominational affiliation for good reason.  

lol, well, if anyone doubts if the admins have talked this stuff through, look at mendalla's and my responses.  lol, we are totally independently posting similair responses to all threads.

I am about to get on a ferry, so won't be online for a few hours.   Please be nice to Mendalla.

Pinga, I thought from reading the document, and from Mendalla's comments, that the community was going to at least be able to vote on the slate. When I read what you've written here, it sounds to me as if the Council alone will be choosing the slate to be on the Council. Which is correct? Why the felt discrepancy?