Loomio

***Vote this week or Next: Fiscal Sponsor - Which One?***

J Jackie Public Seen by 18

Here’s a good test of loomio. for a group wide finance decision coming up 4/9 or 4/16.

This is a two step decision
whether to use a fiscal sponsor
which fiscal sponsor to use

This Discussion deals with Step 2 Which Fiscal Sponsor to Use
- please keep the discussion focused on that.
Fiscal Sponsors Info
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2vI-FRCh4VFl5uXfAFAqr2tLTxBffunyHdGnBQG6N8/edit

All other finance matters will have their own discussion/decision space

J

Jackie Tue 8 Apr 2014 1:02AM

Since this discussion isn't as easy as a yes no decision (Step 1 Use a Fiscal Sponsor Yes or No)
we'll need to take some time to align on one fiscal sponsor, and make a proposal for one. (another way?)

There is info on the two candidates we have and another was mentioned on the call.
Fiscal Sponsors Info
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2vI-FRCh4VFl5uXfAFAqr2tLTxBffunyHdGnBQG6N8/edit

Personally, I think both are good choices and are grassroots and movement friendly, with Janet of OTR being one of our own and on the planning group, and a number of subgroups, and has worked with financial matters for two decades.

AFGJ has a history with Occupy, and has served us well in the past. I have been a liaison with them for natgat2 and InterOccupy, so will abstain from the vote.

If most services are equal, and the fee is 2.5% less, it makes sense to go with OTR and #mutual aid the group more actively involved in Occupy.

+1 OTR

L

Lisa Tue 8 Apr 2014 9:02PM

As far as fiscal agent goes, my criteria for justifying paying for services is -- can we get it for free? Do we really need it? If it's a vital service, and we've discussed if we can get it for free, and we can't--then yes, we need to pay for it.

I hope we have a robust discussion about this on this board and on the conference call. I don't know enough yet to make an informed vote.

L

Lisa Tue 8 Apr 2014 9:09PM

I really like this Loomio platform, but I wish there was a "Not Sure" voting option. "Not sure" means just that--I care about the issue, I want my voice to be heard, I may vote one way or the other after I get more info, hear more people speak on the issue. It is not the same as abstaining.

D

Dallas Wed 9 Apr 2014 1:20AM

Lisa, I think that's why you can set a long duration for discussion prior to voting on this platform.

That to me is one of the strengths of Loomio: Conference calls and in person meetings have the tendency to put pressure to make a decisions in a matter of minutes or hours, knowing that if a matter it tabled until next meeting it might never be decided at all.

With this tool, we can take a whole week to discuss at our convenience without anywhere near as much pressure to cast any sort of a "vote".

Actually: none of use have cast a vote in this discussion, because there isn't even a proposal on the floor yet.

That said, I also feel that I need consider the pros and cons of OTR vs. AFGJ prior to making a decision.

J

Jackie Wed 9 Apr 2014 2:54AM

+1 - right, the way I understand it, just like a GA, we discuss and when it seems there is enough interest for a proposal, make the proposal.

like, now 2 people like OTR - if that moves to 5 or 10 (whatever number), then someone should make the proposal
"To use OTR for fiscal sponsor for natgat3"

The video said you can re-propose but I haven't seen how to do that - maybe have to close the one first.

also, Lisa, you can change votes as info develops, so perfectly ok to vote one way and then in comments say you are not sure but leaning towards up or down. I think it would be better, in test phase to see as many diff up and down votes as possible and then change and refine as info comes.

ha ha let's practice on the Loomio proposal

JC

Julia Clark Thu 10 Apr 2014 8:51PM

As I cleaned out 2 phishing attempts from the JCorg inbox today, that were not too bad, though ( to me) not impressive. And in the recent light of the Heartbleed exploit. A fiscal sponsor would be a good umbrella to have in security related matters. I would expect them to have better tools in place, than would be feasible for a short lived funding event.

CG

Cathy Grahnert Fri 11 Apr 2014 8:18AM

I see that AFGJ offers 'connect to fundraising/grant networks'. Does this mean they will hook us up for additional fundraising, and help us apply for grants? That would be worth the higher fee if they could do that. Does anyone know if they were able to help the other occupies that way? Did NatGat get extra money last year generated from AFGJ?

Also, AFGJ's liability insurance sounds good. If any occupiers are hurt during natgat, it will be beneficial if we could cover their medical fees.

J

Jackie Fri 11 Apr 2014 6:20PM

No, no extra money generated.

I am not sure about this part. I think perhaps they can just point us to possible.grant networks, and communicate fiscally with them, but not influence or do the grant writing.

Elane of AFGJ, who lives in Oakland, said she would be happy to do a conference call to talk about best practices and the fiscal sponsorship services.

not sure what would serve the group best - taking up time on a planning call or having finance wg have a call.

J

Jackie Fri 11 Apr 2014 6:23PM

p.s. liability insurance covers Indoor events only.

early on a lot of the places mentioned by OS wanted insurance and other fees

J

Jackie Tue 15 Apr 2014 5:51AM

Chatted with Janet this morning about the decision Wed. night, and she has re-considered due to too much on her plate.

Janet Wilson‎NatGat3 Planning Group
2 hrs ·
Sorry folks but I'm withdrawing from the NatGat finance group. With two donated houses that need work and another potential on the table my time is very limited. I know AFGJ will step up and take care of you. I must give my full attention to all that's going on in Pueblo, CO right now. I will still be available for some guidance if needed. I really think you ought to get a location before you start asking for funds....time is running out.
Unlike · · Share

So, it seems our decision Wed. night will be
1. should we have a fiscal sponosr
2. vote on proposal to use AFGJ

J

Poll Created Tue 15 Apr 2014 6:14AM

Proposal to Use AFGJ as Fiscal Sponosr Closed Thu 17 Apr 2014 4:39AM

Outcome
by Jackie Wed 26 Apr 2017 9:10AM

AFGJ as fiscal sponsor proposal passed here and on the call.
Loomio tip: I closed before I voted and doesn't seem to have a re-open to edit option. I abstained on the call cuz I brought the proposal and have a relationship with AFGJ. Cal cuz he's IO

Proposal to use AFGJ as fiscal sponsor for the Natgat3 general donation fund. Budget decisions to come out of the general fund to be decided by the whole ngwg. This would be items like food, ground necessities, supplies not met elsewhere.

Info and links to more info are on this pad.
http://natgat2014.titanpad.com/49

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 75.0% 3 T JC L
Abstain 25.0% 1 DH
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 7 J J SG LRR DB MW O

4 of 11 people have voted (36%)

L

Lisa
Agree
Tue 15 Apr 2014 8:33AM

I'm sorry Janet pulled out, but glad she did so early enough for us to choose AFGJ.

T

Tricia
Agree
Tue 15 Apr 2014 8:45AM

Worked ok last year

JC

Julia Clark
Agree
Wed 16 Apr 2014 4:34AM

Building an enduring relationship that NATGAT 2015 can build upon is good. Perhaps even leave it in place to build for next year after this year is complete.

J

Jackie Tue 15 Apr 2014 6:16AM

The proposal presumes we decide to use a fiscal sponsor. That decision will come first.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i2vI-FRCh4VFl5uXfAFAqr2tLTxBffunyHdGnBQG6N8/edit?disco=AAAAAJSsLxE

J

Jackie Thu 17 Apr 2014 4:57AM

AFGJ as fiscal sponsor proposal passed here and on the call. with similar ratio.
3 yes -1 abstain
21% of members stated their position (4/19)
Call 8 yes :3 stand aside
11 of c.15-20 regular call participants (I think c.70 all told on email list, loomio and facebook) so either 70ish% or 15% - depending on the definition of the planning group
No NOs
No Blocks
one person who voted here voted on the call
3 people who voted here were on the call, but not the vote
I'll think I'll try to keep track of this as we go.