[Dialogue] {Spam?} Re: Mutual Accountablity

Mon Jul 2 01:51:46 EDT 2007

Marshall,

An interesting factor in the decision to sell or not to sell the Kemper Building is the research Jim Troxell did at the time.? I'm sure he will share it with you??if you ask.? As I recall, a survey at the time indicated the land value was about $600k, if it was vacant land.? There was virtually no market for the building.? Removing the building to have vacant land to sell would cost about $600k.? This market research which indicated our major asset was virtually worthless as a marketable asset played a part in the decision not to sell.? It is a minor miracle that a lot of hard work, imagination, and dedication turned this virtually worthless asset into the major community asset present today.

Don Elliott

-----Original Message-----
From: W. J. <synergi at yahoo.com>
To: dialogue at wedgeblade.net; oe at wedgeblade.net
Sent: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 4:20 pm
Subject: [Dialogue] Mutual Accountablity

Duncan raises some VERY interesting questions. 

?

Using the Canadian Institute of?Cultural Affairs and affiliates?as a kind of mirror to reflect on our experience with ICA-USA, what pitfalls did they avoid, and what creative new processes and/or structures did they invent in struggling with financial/programmatic accountability?

?

And how did the staff and the board remain mutually accountable?

?

I recall that the Ecumenical Institute would not own the Kemper Building today if the Board of Directors had had its way. Faced with an empty and deteriorating building, the Board decided to sell it. But, as Mary Warren Moffett recently reminded me, a bunch of people--let's call them the Guardian Dynamic--said to the Board, "OH NO, YOU WON'T!" And those determined people succeeded in pulling off what I would call the Kemper Miracle, giving us the investment in Uptown that survives today.

?

So let's not assume that any version of the rapidly changing Board of Directors automatically has the final wisdom or the last word--unless we let them.

?

And finally, Duncan, who is the owner of the ICA Associates in Canada?

?

And why did our Board of Directors prohibit the use of the concept of "ICA Associates" in the USA?

?

Marshall

Duncan Holmes <dholmes99 at sympatico.ca> wrote:

Jim wrote:
> I wonder how other ICA's have dealt with this . . .

I seldom participate in this discussion other than read. I can say some
about our experience in Canada over the years. It may or may not have
relevance to the discussion but it illustrates how we have had to wrestle
with the dynamics of being a participatory organization having to make
decisions when one part of the group was legally responsible - which I think
is the question Jim asked.

The ICA Canada board made it very clear to the staff several times over our
history when we carried some significant debt that if push came to shove it
was the Board that was legally liable for the organization. Any debts that
the organization had accrued (which the staff had accrued) the Board would
be held accountable for and would have to pay - if the debt got called.

At one point some 20 years ago, the ICA Canada Board suggested that the
organization be closed and its assets given to another charity as required
by law in Canada when a charity is closed. The staff survived that one and
began to work out a new way to work with the Board. We came to an agreement
that the staff could be part of the discussions and consensus making of the
Board and the staff would do what the Board decided to do.

It was a dicey walk at times. The Board on several occasions "laid down the
law" and made a difficult decision we as staff could not bring ourselves to
make. They for instance said Edges could only be published if every issue
was financially break even. The magazine at that time was causing a
financial hemorrhage. The staff followed through and some issues later Edges
was no longer on the news stand.

In short, we as staff had to come to terms that in Canada, (and I do not
know the USA law) staff could not legally be on the Board; the Board had
final legal accountability; and we had to create a way to honour those
realities as we figured out how to be operate in a participatory mode.

Several years ago ICA Associates Inc., a for profit company, was in the
situation of having to lay off staff to survive financially. We had involved
all the staff in figuring out how to break even. The owners learned that we
could ask all the staff for input but it was irresponsible to ask them to
make the decision on who to lay off, when that was the only cost cutting
measure we had left in our pocket. Those who were laid off were glad to have
input but equally appreciative that they did not have to make the decision.
That had to be done by the owners. It raised the question about
participation in a very different way.

That has been some of our experience. I hope it helps the discussion.

Duncan

Duncan Holmes is President of ICA Associates Inc in Toronto, Canada. He was
Executive Director of ICA Canada for 15 years and is now Treasurer of the
Board of ICA Canada. He joined the order in 1971.

On 6/28/07 11:42 PM, "James Wiegel" wrote:

> It would be great, and somewhat representational to
> sort this out. You all will remember I sent around an
> article written by Jim Campbell describing the origins
> of organizaitons (incorporated ones ) and how they are
> structured in a way somewhat antithetical to
> participation. I find I run into this quite often --
> the formal structures of organization are quite
> different than the way people try to operate, and, at
> least, if you are pretending to be a 501(c)(3), the
> board gets to decide.
> 
> I wonder how other ICA's have dealt with this . . .
> --- David Dunn wrote:
> 
>> On 6/28/07 5:09 PM, "Judy Lindblad" wrote:
>> 
>>> Both Institutes have By-laws. The Board of
>> Directors
>>> serves both Institutes. The yearly audit covers
>> both Institutes. Both
>>> Institutes are registered in the State of
>> Illinois. Both Institutes exist as
>>> separate but coordinate organizations.
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> "Both Institutes exist as separate but coordinate
>> organizations."
>> 
>> In the context of our present conversation, that is
>> a most interesting, if
>> ambiguous phrase. I wonder what it means legally and
>> I wonder what it
>> suggests missionally.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Dunn
>> www.mirrorcommunication.com
>> david at mirrorcommunication.com
>> 720-314-5991
>> Skype: dmirror
>> 
>> -- THANKS FOR UPDATING MY EMAIL ADDRESS --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dialogue mailing list
>> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>> 
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>> 
> 
> 
> 401 North Beverly Way
> Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
> +1?623-936-8671
> +1?623-363-3277
> jfwiegel at yahoo.com
> 
> Now and then it's good to pause in the pursuit of happiness and just be happy.
> Guillaume Apollinaire
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> ______
> Don't pick lemons.
> See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list
Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net

________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070702/b8884cc4/attachment.html 