[Oe List ...] [Dialogue] Revised ICA By-Laws

[Duncan Holmes]

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" <jfwiegel at yahoo.com> 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 <david at mirrorcommunication.com> 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