LISTSERV - IOWA-TOPICS Archives - LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Approved-By:  [log in to unmask]
Message-ID:  <[log in to unmask]>
Date:         Sun, 29 Aug 1999 22:38:11 -0800
Reply-To: Sierra Club Council Open Discussion
        <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Sierra Club Council Open Discussion
        <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jack Maney <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: First draft of Council Agenda
To: [log in to unmask]

------------------------- CCL-DISCUSSION Message ---------------------------

For Chapters that are statewide, the Groups are
=B7 Fundamental to the strength and success of the Chapter and the Club
=B7 The most effective way to serve and involve members around a state
=B7 The most cost-effective interface between the Club and our general
membership and the public
=B7 The training and recruiting ground for Chapter officers, committee chair=
s,
activists, outing leaders, etc.
=B7 A great way for the Club to work on local as well as statewide issues
=B7 And much more.

I picture the Club to Chapter and Chapter to Group relationships as very
similar, with a Chapter composed of Groups just as the Club is composed of t=
he
Chapters. The Club works on federal issues, the Chapters work on statewide
issues and the Groups work on local issues.

The Chapters do have a major but not exclusive role in managing their Groups
and ensuring that they comply with Club policies and procedures. The Chapter=
s
are clearly in the best position to do this effectively, especially when all
of the Groups participate and vote in the Chapter EXCOM. (I recommend this b=
e
mandatory in the new bylaws.) Managing their Groups may be somewhat of a
burden on Chapters, but a necessary one.

On the other hand, occasionally a national entity creates an unnecessary and
excessive burden on the Chapters by asking the Chapter for detailed info abo=
ut
each Group, when it could have asked the Groups directly. The OE newsletter
survey was a very burdensome example of this and should not be repeated.

The Club also needs to respect the high degree of autonomy that allows
effective Groups to work independently from the Chapter on local conservatio=
n,
membership, outing and fundraising activities. It is exactly this autonomy
that makes the Groups a powerful force multiplier for the Chapters and the
Club, just as the Chapters are for the Club. Respecting this autonomy means,
for example, considering Group funds, income and assets separately from
Chapter funds, income and assets. It also means framing the Canvass "turf"
boundaries in terms of Group boundaries. When the Canvass folks simply name
some metropolitan area with several adjoining Groups, it can be difficult to
get buy-in from the correct Groups.

Although I can see some room for clarification, and I have my own ideas abou=
t
what works for Chapters/Groups, I also believe that our diversity in Chapter=
s
structures is part of our strength. Only very compelling arguments would
justify forcing more conformity. Something missing which might be helpful is
an effective means for Chapters to share in detail what works well for them.
This could help us gain the most benefit from our diversity, and perhaps
encourage voluntarily standardizing on what seems to work best.

I would like to hear all of the concerns that Carl presents to the CCL EXCOM=
.

If the CCL wants to set up a committee or task force on Chapter/Group
relations I might be available. I was a Group founder and Chair before
becoming a Chapter officer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
To get off the CCL-DISCUSSION list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]