I think it has something to do with the reduced autonomy of chairpersons. The current policies seem to be setup to limit the damage a bad chairperson can do versus enabling a good chairperson to be as effective as possible. Things have changed since I made that post below but I still think the chairperson should have more autonomy.
The churn is by design. We allow people to join and quit as they wish and always have. It’s both good and bad but I don’t know whether it’s better or worse than other options. A big con is it allows “customers” with no skin in the game to come and go compared to a “member” that wants to invest in the organization and see it succeed long-term. A big pro is we probably get a lot members that stick around because they ended up liking it but never would’ve signed up if it were more expensive or more difficult to do (I put myself into this category).
If we don’t want churn then we shouldn’t allow churn. I don’t think it’s a result of anything other than our policies which allow it. For example require dues upfront on an annual basis rather than a monthly basis so the minimum membership duration is one year. Or have something like a $500 application fee and then a $50 monthly due. If you ever quit you have to pay the application fee again. I’m not saying we should do that, these are just examples of things that would reduce churn (and probably bring other unintended consequences).
Here’s an example of a nearby organization with policies to minimize churn. Again, not saying we should do this but this is how other organizations handle it.
Another option I’ve heard discussed is that training lapses when your membership does. “Want to cut stuff on the laser? Keep your membership up or plan to wait for the next available training class.“
Of course this would just put more pressure on the trainers of (often free to take) classes…
FWIW, I used to teach the table saw safety class at Ladybird and I, too, had to take the class before I could use it after the revamp of the class curriculum.
I don’t have know what degree of autonomy a committee should have, but I don’t really sympathize with people who abandon their responsibilities simply because they dislike having less power.
Unless the leaders at DMS are literally pointing a gun at me and telling me “I’ll shoot if you pick up that broom,” I should be sweeping/picking up and so should anyone else that has been elected to maintain their space. Even if we have less power, the chairs still have plenty of autonomy and support to make their committees active.
So as far as I see it, this is entirely in the hands of the committee chairs and vice-chairs. It is on me and Kobin to make sure that those who operate within science committee do so in a smooth, well-supplied, safe, and enjoyable environment. Anything else would be our failure and our failure alone.
Their responsibilities? DMS isn’t their kid. These people are volunteers and we’re competing for their time which is a finite resource. If we make it a less effective and less rewarding experience then fewer people are going to be willing to give their time to us for free. If every committee were active and doing a satisfactory job then it’s an indication that the system is working. That isn’t the case in my opinion.
You’re missing the point. Committee chairpersons aren’t there because of their unique abilities to sweep the floor and we don’t have systemic problems with sweeping the floors. Yes, we should all sweep the floor and maintain the space. Nobody disputes that.
I’m genuinely thankful for anyone willing to volunteer their time, yourself included, especially in an official capacity. I respectfully disagree though. Maybe that works for you and your committee but it doesn’t work across the entire organization. The policies put in place by the board drastically affect the chairperson’s effectiveness and ultimately who we can even recruit to be a chairperson. When committees are all kinds of fucked up and the chairperson runs unopposed it’s a problem. Maybe the problem isn’t related to what I think it is. Maybe the problem is something else entirely. I say be wrong often and be wrong early so if there’s other ways you think we can recruit qualified and effective volunteers for chairpersons and other roles then you have my attention.
What policies do you think have been counterproductive to chairperson’s effectiveness / recruit-ability? (I’m not privy to the last 18months of policies)
I don’t think it’s that recent, but from what I’ve heard it was apparently before my time (2.5 years) that chairs were more benevolent dictators. Things didn’t require committee votes, they could just make the rule / major change.
Now we have a problem where a decision needs to happen, but either the committee can never muster votes to get something done or they don’t feel empowered to do what’s needed.
In Infrastructure we had a big problem with this when I first joined. We spent months arguing about various options for problems, without a conclusion. It wasn’t a technical problem that was encountered in need of a solution; tons of software does everything needed. It came down to IT holy wars over the preferred choices of users based on what they’ve used personally or what they just liked out of principle. It’s sometimes hard for groups to keep that kind of mentality out of the decision making process.
In those times, the chair wasn’t able to just put the foot down and get done what needed to get done and pick one to deploy. As a group led by an officer we can do this now with relative ease as it’s needed.
It makes sense for things like Infrastructure and Logistics for sure. I’m not in agreement with Luke that every committee should be “the old way” from how it’s been described to me, but I definitely see the problems with the current method of how things get done.
Luckily for me as chair of metal, we haven’t had much of this problem. In metal we have some excellent volunteers well versed in the machines in topics I usually defer to, and the committee is pretty knowledgeable and usually comes to a consensus. However it helps that most of them have either worked in industry or are very experienced, and the problems fairly technical with well-accepted solutions. On the other hand, when you have committees where people aren’t in that line of work or it’s a less technical and more personal choice for a decision I can understand how problems arise more.
A lot of it is covered in the thread I linked to earlier.
Committees could operate under one of two different governance models. Either benevolent dictatorship or consensus (voting). Most committees used to operate as benevolent dictatorship. This enabled the chairperson to do whatever needed to be done without meetings, votes, delays, etc. If the chairperson wanted to see which way the wind was blowing they could have a vote. Other chairpersons wanted the consensus model so they had meetings and voted on many more things than benevolent dictatorships would. Somewhere along the way the benevolent dictatorship model was removed and some other changes were made. For many committees this greatly complicated the role of being a chairperson. In my opinion this is when the space started to become less functional overall.
Purchasing things went from a widespread effort to just a couple of people. What used to take a 10 minute trip to buy something down the street became an email chain and days or weeks of delay. This greatly impacted the smaller stuff like repairing a door knob, stocking screw drivers and small tools, oil absorbent and other safety supplies, and all the little stuff you take for granted until it’s not working anymore.
Chairpersons were sometimes decided upon by a vote of the committee but not always. People were usually appointed because they seemed like they had aptitude or could improve the situation somehow. Elections became the main way chairpersons were chosen which devolved into popularity contests and proxy voting wars that were a disservice to DMS and it’s members.
People used to be appointed for better reasons than popularity, people used to be enabled to do more things in less time, and it was easier to get things done whether a big thing or a small thing. The current policies seem to be setup to limit the damage a bad chairperson can do versus enabling a good chairperson to be as effective as possible. We seem to hang onto bad chairpersons and have trouble recruiting better ones. I think that’s mostly because of the changes made to how committees operate but I’m certainly open to other viewpoints because a rising tide raises all boats.
Yeah, I’m in the same boat. Taken it twice now and am officially uncertified for the woodshop. I’m trying to decide whether I’ll bother to take the refresher course now, or wait until the next change of guard and have to take it again for the 4th time.
I stopped doing it when the purchasing was consolidated into just a few people. I had a credit card and I regularly fixed things and bought things that were needed. If I wasn’t around there were 20 other people that could buy something right then. I don’t know how many there are now but at one point it was down to like 3 people? Maybe 4? Pretty much every chairperson had a credit card which made it super easy and fast to solve problems.
I could probably still do it and fill out a form to get reimbursed but that’s another step that I decided I didn’t want to do. Other folks were in the same boat. If enough people still want to do it, cool, I hope they do. Like you said though, they’re not.
You can apply this to a lot of the rules like with honorarium. I agree that abuse needs to be prevented and stopped, but it often comes at making it more difficult for those that follow the process.
I don’t think I should move it since I took it off topic. Maybe @Team_Moderators could split this into a topic about committee governance or chairperson effectiveness, something like that?
@Adam_Oas Do you feel that it’s a bad thing to occasionally require re-training? Why or why not? What if that re-training was online and took a few minutes instead of fighting to get into the next class?
@lukeiamyourfather You make some good points. As a new woodshop chair I feel restrained in my ability to take action without committee consensus. I can certainly see that if I had the ability to move forward with my ideas without consulting the committee it would be so much easier. On the other hand, I’ve had to create consensus in large groups to get stuff done before, so I don’t find it particularly daunting per se, just status quo.
I do find it frustrating that making basic purchases requires consent. I shouldn’t need committee approval to buy replacement circuit boards or teaching materials for example. But by that same token, I probably need approval to buy new machines / tools, if for no other reason than to prevent me from spending money on tools just because I want them. I could buy a new hand plane for <$200 though, so is it really stopping that right now?
I don’t think you’re right (at first glance) that the change in chair election style has contributed to a popularity contest any more than the previous model. The previous model simply allowed the board to be preferential with the chairs they picked, it’s still a popularity contest, just less people you have to be popular with.
In short I think your argument holds some water but necessitates finding a middle ground between current policies and old.
From my perspective, one of the largest issues preventing me from functioning as an autonomous chair is the lack of a budget. If I had a monthly/ quarterly budget, I could better function as a business unit and plan purchases. Right now, with no budget, the only real check on my spending power is the committee, so perhaps it’s a good thing until we can establish budgets again. If I had a budget, I would argue that the board should raise the spending limits drastically.
I’m not Adam, but I and a number of other members are in the same boat. I could certainly get behind this concept rather than waiting for the improbable alignment of the heavens that is class scheduling, my availability, and open seats in a class.
You become responsible for an activity or space the moment you volunteer to manage an activity or space and you are volunteering for a year if you are a chair or vice-chair.
Ideally we would all maintain the space and clean it, but the buck stops at the chairs and vice-chairs of the respective areas. We are ultimately responsible for achieving consensus when needed as well. This is simply leadership.
Furthermore, filling out a short expense form is extremely easy and I can’t understand why that would make the difference between helping and not helping. I definitely cannot sympathize with this attitude.