Yes, please do stop. Unless you care to provide an example of someone having their honorarium rejected because they have a job…
I think Walter means don’t blame me for it, as I just copied and pasted it. I actually thought Chris had an excellent suggestion regarding the wording and specificity. I want to hear more at the Member meeting, then I will start rewriting stuff.
I did this in an effort to communicate with the members about things that were largely already in place but intermittently enforced. The only real change was one that Walter added, requesting that auditors with a history with members abstain from rejecting their classes. Everything else is based on either a rejection, stuff on the wiki, or past Board members.
None of this is something I’m proposing or anything along those lines. This is just trying to be more transparent about stuff that already exists, because I think people are upset because of confusion, as well as disagreeing with some of the actual rules.
If you don’t like the way it’s written, I totally invite you to suggest an edit, or even take on the project as your own if you want to reword the whole set of rules. I will certainly not stop you.
1 Like
The particular rule Bitta is complaining about is the ONLY one documented in the current rules.
It was @SewingStuff and I that pushed to have the informal rules being used codified, and more importantly have that dicussion opened to the members. So yes, we are both a little touchy about complaining and misrepresenting the current rules, rather then seeking solutions. Which as she says includes crafting your own text.
2 Likes
Come to the meeting and invite others, more the better. Our system is imperfect and will only improve with feedback and effort.
We did not just make shit up to make instructors lives hell. We were solving other problems we have experienced. If you feel there is a better way present a solution. We can’t make it so “flexible” to meet every need. Need to find a workable compromise, not name calling and unsupported willy nilly.
4 Likes
Since we implemented the red receipt/envelope system our results are actually quite amazing! Very excited to share the results with the members during our CA meeting. Just wanted to let everyone know that system isn’t just working it’s actually rocking the roof!
1 Like
I’m very thankful things were written, will be discussed, and are something that can be amended. I am and have been trying to think of solutions for instructors while still adhering to the needs of the new rules.
When Tandy was talking about coming in and offering classes on of the things we talked about was this scenario - which is the same as what I believe Bitta is speaking about:
(and I realize this is prior to the new rules, that this never materialized, and that this might be a waste of effort for me to type out)
Everyone makes a generic brown wallet for a $10 fee. Options would be made available to them during the class to “customize” the wallet - adornment, different types of lace, x, y, and z all displayed with different prices on them. Tandy would be selling direct to a customer and DMS wouldn’t be involved in that at all. Tandy would deal with what Tandy would need to deal with independently.
My limitations come in because
1.I don’t understand how DMS is responsible for that sale.
2 I think the offerings will become more and more limited to the student because I’m not really able or willing to stock all the items that would be offered to an individual.
2 Likes
Well, I can neither answer most of your questions (because I don’t think they were considered when the rule was made) nor do I have any real support for the idea that teachers shouldn’t be able to charge for whatever they wish, AND collect honorarium. This concept of double dipping just doesn’t apply as far as I am concerned.
The people who agree to pay feel it is worth it to them, and if more then three it is no different from the DMS perspective then any other class.
I know that one of the concerns that frequently get voices is the ‘quality’ of the class and the belief that it harms our ‘brand’ to have poor classes, especially if additional charges are incurred. I know that people will have additional expectation for a paid class versus a free one, and we have had some issues with paid classes in the past. Now what your talking about isn’t actually a ‘paid’ class, but without receipts for the materials we have no way to distinguish between a payment for labor and one for materials.
And many of our members seem concerned about folks ‘making money’ from DMS. Again it is a complicated issue with many sides, and your vice chair, @Photomancer is one of the only folks speaking for the ‘other’ side that has offered coherent explainations as to the why behind some of these concerns.
I know that David was the one who put the warning out about income and it’s implications to teachers.
The creative arts center of Dallas (http://creativeartscenter.org) is also a non-profit specifically focused on the arts. While it’s not exactly the same (they have a paid administrative staff) I do believe they function under the same non-profit standing as us. They have a class price and also a fee associated with the classes for example the leather class I just clicked was $65 class plus $60 fee. Materials are provided by the instructor. The difference is I believe teachers are given an hourly wage and the fee.
Now, I know what the recourse will be - “that really doesn’t matter - that’s not us” and I know. I’m just thinking out of all the non-profits in the area lots have probably dealt with this issue before. One of our new members, Ruby, told me about this place the Volunteer Center Dallas (http://www.volnow.org) from what I understand they help non-profits navigate tricky waters. Possibly we could ask for some help with some of our recent concerns. She said it’s both a place where volunteers can find a position and a bit of a sounding board for non-profits - although I didn’t see much evidence of that on the website.
1 Like
I don’t believe the rule was based upon any legal requirement. From the earliest discussions about this it appears to me that this rule was created because some members simply object to anyone earning money from DMS… Since no one other then @SewingStuff and I are responding, I suggest leaving this to the member meeting, since I really can’t defend a rule I don’t think is needed or appropriate.
1 Like
CAC is run like a for - profit business under an non-profit 501©3 umbrella. If you look at their 990 most of their revenue is generated through class fees. Thus able to pay teachers by these fees, therefore, very specific. The DMS structure as primarily membership dues for revenue makes it a different animal especially when it comes to providing income for teachers. Not apples to apples at all.
2 Likes
It’s class materials. We’re just trying to give folks some options in a way that is reasonable, financially responsible for CA and creatively inspiring. We aren’t launching a kick-starter, building company sold machine components, or running a manufacturing or production operation with DMS tools and supplies. Address the money-making aversion with the folks that actually and routinely do personally profit. I simply don’t feel instructors providing specialty mats for classes really fit that mold.
I just think project classes are 
and the epitome of what a makerspace should offer its members…educating people on making things by actually making them. Yes, the tool 101s are super-important, too, but using the tools to make something is even better. Just my opinion. I get excited rushing home to show the family what I made in class today…it’s just cool.
I just don’t see the upside of limiting a students access to class materials.
1 Like
As I mentioned to Nicole, your arguing with the wrong person. I don’t support this rule. But it is our current rule and needs to be followed; however, I am all for you’ll getting it changed. But, the folks who support it haven’t shown up to this thread, so don’t expect to convince them here.
1 Like
Came up here tonight specifically for this. Thought it was at 1900, like the calendar says. When nobody was still around at 1920, I left (after doing some other “stuff” that wasn’t important). WIsh I could read where it says “8:00”… (BUT FYI, I was NOT alone in thinking it should already be going on at 1920)
Per the calendar it was at 8, but we moved it to the lecture hall because of a class in the IC.