proposed org chart 12-15.pdf
NOTES ON PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 12/23/2015
General Membership
This can be anyone but they can not “vote” until they have been involved in some way for at least 3 months. [TF: I don't like this, but don't have a ready suggestion yet. will think of something. it seems too “clubby”… what is “involved”, reading the posts? showing up and being silent? what is a satisfactory level of participation?“]
They make all the major policy decisions including approving the budget, bylaws, bots and core team members. [TF: I think waiting for a general membership meeting to approve core team members is too long]
They can participate in the fish bowl (see below.) [TF: we'll have to talk about this, I want more participation.this looks too much like “real government”, like what we have today, versus what I think we should have for the future]]
Fish Bowl
General members can be part of a fish bowl meeting of the core team 4 times per year. They would be able to observe the entire meeting and would have a time limited opportunity to provide feedback on either the content or the process of the meeting toward the end of the meeting and for a 2 week period after the meeting, as needed. [TF: I think all Core Team meetings should be open to observance and comment]
Core Team and BOTS (Board of Trusted Servants)
They would meet at least 4 times per year with the fish bowl and as many as 8 more times by conference call or in person, as needed. A quorum for this group would be ½ of all of the participants. [TF: I would like a provision for “non-voting” meetings. Often a group doesn't meet quorum but then meets anyway and gets non-controversial stuff done, rather than wasting everyone's time getting together and then disabanding]
The core team is responsible for the development and maintenance of the by laws and the general operation of the organization. They can carry out the general policy set by the membership as they see fit. [TF: agree, but feel like “development” is the responsibility of the GM, rather than CT. CT should PROPOSE, and NOT like normal gov't where the insiders propose stuff for a rubber stamp. I really want open governance…development WITH anyone who wants to participate…there's got to be a way]
Working Groups
The working groups members are also volunteers but do not need to be approved by the general membership. There can be as many WGs as there are people willing to coordinate such, but they must report activity to the Core Team. They will have 2 “leaders” who are selected by the working groups, one of whom represents the working group's perspective to the core team and one of whom represents the core team's perspective to the working group. Both of these leaders are members of the core team and therefore need to be approved by the general membership once a year.
The working groups carry out the general policy set by the membership as they see fit within their area of operation. (For example, a regional working group would have autonomy to collect signatures in their own way in their own region, with information flowing back and forth between the core team and the WG but without any constraints on their creativity or engagement as long as they are carrying out the general policy set by the general membership.)
Allies
Allies are by definition independent from our organization. Any member of our organization can choose to work with any ally that they want to as an individual. Their communication and participation would be as an individual member and not as a representative of PMA. Public announcements made on behalf of PMA would be made by either the media or the membership group. (Please see below.) If for some reason an ally requires a formal representative of PMA, that would have to be approved by the general membership.
2 options (so far) for the details on Bots, Core Team and WG's:
Option one – fewer bots and core team members
The rest of the core team is made of representatives (2 each) associated with the following WG's: Media (Public), Membership (Master list and Action list), Petitioning (with subgroups for each regional team), State house.
Option two – more bots and core team members
8 Bots as follows: treasurer, secretary, facilitator(s), by laws, media (public), membership (master list and action list), state wide petitioning, State house lobbying
The rest of the core team is made of representatives (2 each) associated with the following regional teams, which might be involved in any number of activities, including but not limited to petitioning and state house lobbying: Boston, East Middlesex, Essex, Franklin Ct, North Middlesex, South Middlesex, Worcester, etc.
Option three? Please share your ideas - Thanks
TF proposed BOT list:
BOT list:
why do we need this page
[[TF comment about the proposed org chart picture. I feel like the words 'General Membership should be on TOP, and that BOTS should be on the bottom, as a symbolic confirmation that the GM is “in charge” “the boss”.