Red Earth Restructure Vision
Eric Doriean PublicSeen by 16The first 2 Vision Sessions were held on the 2nd of July and 14th of July.
The purpose was for the Restructure Committee to draw a line in the sand from what had happened before and come together to agree on what we are collectively working towards.
As a result of the sessions, a document named Red Earth Restructure Vision was compiled. Over 3 weeks the Restructure Committee have helped evolve the document into a collective vision of what we are creating.
The document is attached at has been collaborated on @ https://docs.google.com/document/d/11_Taj0cOJkMDb81QtC5QZn3tFxlfVlj8-FBKOBVHNhs/edit#heading=h.eqpoxxy8gmzz
Do you agree that the Red Earth Restructure Vision document attached is an accurate vision of what we are working towards as the Restructure Committee?
poll by Eric Doriean Closed Mon 27 Jul 2020 10:02PM
Attached is a pdf of the Red Earth Restructure Vision document as of today Tuesday 21st of July 2020. This is the version of the document that you are voting on here.
Results
| Results | Option | % of points | Voters | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 100 | 11 |     | |||
| No | 0 | 0 | ||||
| Not voted | 1 |  |
Really excellent vision statement, thank you. @Eric Doriean . I think there needs to be more than just the legal minimum requirement for financial transparency for CLGs but that is detail down the track There is a difference between adopting the cooperative principles and actually writing the co-op financial reporting requirements into our constitution. I believe this should be explicit somewhere in our outputs. Thanks again!
Eric, I'm very appreciative of your great work here with everyone's support, input and clear thinking. Moving along nicely.
Item removed
I am transferring @Phil Smart 's question in the document comments here:
PS: Just for clarity, the red board is the holding entity board yes? i.e. Burning Seed TC is ultimately answerable to the holding entity board?
ED: Correct. Have updated to be clearer
MF response: I don't know if that is correct yet.
I really think this needs to be discussed, in detail, in the Membership, Board make-up and org design topics. Also until we get a consultation locked in with a legal/accounting professional our assumptions may be incorrect. For example I have a strong belief that the members of the Cultural Org should always own the Burning Seed IP and Burning Seed should always remain the main fundraising event for the cultural org to continue to operate with maximum benefit to its members. Other orgs that come along and affiliate with the Cultural Org would be on a case by case basis. But what we are setting up now is to me, to be the primary symbiotic relationship. The only reason the ops entity would fold would be due to insolvency or some other major company issue, but it would be replaced with a new ops entity with a new licence to operate under the marks owned by the cultural org.
However I am unsure about how the boards might relate to each other or how they are appointed/elected. I am quite certain that the board of the cultural org should be elected by the members but it may require a few executive places to be vetted to ensure we do not end up with a purely populist board who lack the skills to keep the org stable and legally compliant.
When it comes to the operational entity I am less certain. The members could elect a proportion of the "board" based on very specific operationally important skills, and a set number of Cultural Org Directors could also sit on the ops "Board" (like TC and REC operate now but with an election and different rep numbers) to ensure the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. OR the Ops entity does not have a board at all, but an elected Committee of Management that could be some kind of hybrid of current model where "TC" (cultural and policy decisions) and Facilitators (engine room) are on a committee together and are ultimately accountable to the members of the cultural org. Certain types of members could elect the engine room portion of the committee (think crew who actually have to work with these folks).
Yep. Lots of details to go through. Thinking the membership and board vision sessions are going to need more than one week each. So much to go through. Once we get through those, things will be a lot clearer
FYI, the pdf has been updated since the poll began. Things were removed and not added. This was done with the intention of gaining consensus on this foundational document.
It's important to note that things can change in the future, but we'd have to have the conversation as to why we were changing them.
You can change your vote any time until Monday night. The updated pdf is attached to the original poll post and here as well.