Discussion of voting rights for volunteers

[superjaz]

regarding the mini con, volunteers got free admission, which was nice other wise we probably would not of atended because most of the time during min con the volunteers were up stairs stuffing badges, when we weren't it was because we were waiting for more letters to be printed or somthing like that, or on lunch break


on a seprate note

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZgsJxBuP9o

why  can't we be friends

[Hawkeye]

Very well said, everyone, well said indeed.  Shelton brings up several really good points.  Guspacho, it really isn't appropriate for one single higher up staff member to bring this up on the forums quite like this, this is something that should eventually be brought up to everyone.  I also agree that although a vote by the execs on whether or not honorary staff members have equal rights to full staff members would be a good thing, it may not happen right away.  You should still attend the meetings though, we need all opinions, whether or not voting is allowed.  I do think that if they want to change whether or not volunteers have that right, it should wait until next fall though, because if it gets revoked now, it can set a dangerous precedent without adequate discussion and insight into the issue.

[MichaelEvans]

I do agree on the discussion portion of Hawkeye's most recent post.  Just given the number of comments here, an actual meeting would not possibly allow for the proper time to discuss the information.  I think that pre-discussing the issue, in fact almost any issue that will be brought up at the next, or a future, meeting is an excellent use of this resource and would allow for summary position statements for and against the issue at the meeting to suffice for anyone who didn't review the in depth material archived here.

[Crystal]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

[Hawkeye]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

I believe the answer to your question Crystal is that tracking the hours is Vallie's job, and Brownie's job to verify and accept the results (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  I think this validates the right of at least having the honorary staff members be able to participate in the voting process, which is what we were aiming for, I do believe.  Thank you so much for posting this.

[COMaestro]

Okay here's my few cents, for what they're worth. I can see where Guspasho is coming from, in that the volunteer perks should not outweigh the staff perks. However, I disagree that this year the volunteer perks were better than staff's. As already mentioned, most of the stuff, like Kumoricash and raffle, fell through.

I did receive one of the staff t-shirts, like superjaz, but as she said, we didn't ASK for staff shirts, we waited to see what the word from on-high was. Admittedly I hoped for a staff shirt and was quite pleased when I received one. But, again like jaz, I don't want to deprive someone else of their hard won shirt, and am willing to give it back (I've worn it already though). However, I still want a t-shirt. And I can't see there being a large shortage of staff t-shirts, as there were only 5-6 people who made it to the honorary staff level as defined by Vallie, and I know for a fact that at least one of them received the regular attendee shirt. I'd have to look back at the plan, but I think volunteers qualified for a free shirt at 10-12 hours, so any other volunteers who qualified for a free shirt should probably only have received a regular one. If they didn't, that is not the fault of the volunteers.

I don't think any volunteers attended the staff dinner of pizza, and didn't really participate in the party either. We sat at a table and talked with some people after we came back from dinner with Vallie, who can't eat pizza (and Jaz deserved a better birthday dinner in my opinion, but I'm biased). And really, if we hadn't been with Vallie, I think we would have been turned away at the door anyway, since we weren't staff. Other than a couple rounds of DDR and (a big thank you to gus) chatting real quick with Sean and Kirk, we were exhausted and didn't participate in the party.

I think all the volunteers who reached honorary staff did take advantage of the con suite, but did not abuse that privilege. All told, I think the only real perks volunteers who were willing to put in a large number of hours got was a t-shirt and con suite access. Not to downplay any of that, but the claims of volunteers getting better perks than staff this year are just false.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

This is a really good point, but unless it's posted elsewhere, there's no definition of what the Board of Directors considers a volunteer level to qualify for voting rights. This is something that MUST be clarified and decided upon. Vallie's plan made 20 hours of volunteering an honorary staff level, which would suggest voting rights here, but if her plan was not officially approved by the Board, then this honorary staff status is meaningless. However, with the bylaws specifically saying "pre-event and during even committment" that means the 40 hours or so of pre-event hours I put in should count, along with the 10-20 hours I put in during con. That means I put in at least 50 hours, which is 6 hours more than the con is actually open and running. The only argument to this is that since I didn't sign a piece of paper saying I'm staff, I have not made a "committment" to the con. Again, this must be clarified in the bylaws, otherwise I'd have to say those who made it to honorary staff level should have a vote, because they have put in enough time to show their committment to the con.

There was a worry about there being no reason to be a staff member if the volunteer perks can eventually make someone honorary staff. That is a valid concern. I myself will never be staff, no matter the perks, because I want to be able to do what I want during the con. However, there was plenty of times this year where there was nothing going on that I was really interested in, so I'd stop by the info booth to help out, or run some messages back and forth. There was one instance where I got a message that a yojimbo in gaming needed a break, and I asked around for a free yojimbo, and Mike at registration filled in. I WOULD have been willing to, but volunteers can't watch doors because they haven't had yojimbo training.

I know there are plenty of staffers who work more hours during the year than this, and I applaud them and thank them for their efforts. Without them, the con would not happen. But at the same time, without the volunteers to support staffers, to fill in the gaps the staff have, the con wouldn't work out either. And if the staff is feeling underappreciated, then there should be some other perks for them. Use some of the same things Vallie came up with for the volunteers, like the raffle, or some other kind of rewards. Have some prizes at the staff dinner for the hardest workers or whatever category you can come up with. I'm sure some staffer can be given a small budget and come up with plenty of ideas. But don't penalize the volunteers for their hard work in order to make the staff shine more.

Anyway, I hope no one feels attacked by my comments. As Jaz wrote (I love my honey), can't we all be friends? I know this forum is mostly focused on the voting rights, but ultimately it just comes down to wanting respect. The volunteers need to respect the staff, and the staff need to respect the volunteers. We're all needed to run the con, and we're all equally ignored or treated badly by the attendees 

[valliegirl]

Those volunteers weren't allowed to attend the staff dinner or use the con suite, and weren't supposed to, they only snuck in and took advantage of the staff who did not want to confront them and tell them to leave, and who frankly have more important things to do at con than police entrance to con suite. We did have a body of law for it, we have said outright that "this is only for staff", and it was violated with impunity because normal people don't want to have to be confrontational, and those volunteers pushed those boundaries.

What year are you talking about Gus?

If you are talking about 04 and 05, you're dead wrong and I wonder what information you're basing this off of.  I was a volunteer both of those years.  I HAVE NEVER SNUCK INTO A STAFF FUNCTION.  I was invited to every single dinner I ever went to.  I can tell you specifically what happened with both dinners as well.

2004, at the Mariott, as Tom and I helped out during con and helped with close down.  We were invited to the dinner afterwards, and were told to meet up at a specific time.  We spent a bunch of time cleaning up and then went over to the stairs where we were suppossed to meet everyone, and no one was there.  After waiting around for a few minutes, we decided to go to the restaurant.  It was explained to us then that the meet up time had changed to be earlier, but no one told us.  There was one table left, which was empty and far away from everyone else.  Tom decided to leave without ordering.  I stayed but felt very segregated.  A couple people noticed and came over to talk to me...  people I didn't even really know...  and I don't even remember now who it was.  But they came over and tried to apologize for us being left behind and spent time with me.

2005, at the Double tree, I worked extremely hard all weekend long.  I showed up on Friday with setup and worked long into the evening, and then straight through the weekend.  Brownie noticed and basically told me that I wasn't a volunteer, I was staff.  And I was invited, INVITED, to go to the staff dinner at that Chinese restaurant a few blocks away.  I didn't sneak in, I walked in with everyone else and I actually got to sit with people I knew that year and had a decent time. 

2006, I was a grunt staff member, because everytime I tried to apply for something higher up in ranking I was either lost or ignored.  I actually had to sign up to be staff three times because someone kept losing record of me.  I didn't even have a badge Friday night of con.  Brownie had to have mine reprinted again at the last minute because I was apparently lost in the system again.  I worked hard at reg all day because they were desperate for ANYONE to work on reg and then ran panels at night til 2am.  I wasn't told until the very last moment that they'd decided to limit the number of spaces available at the dinner afterwards.  I found out that I was invited but Tom wasn't. 

So I requested my ticket be given to someone else.  I wanted to go.  I'd really been looking forward to it, especially with the hell I went through that year.  But if it's a choice between going to your special dinner and spending time with people I care about, I don't give a damn about a free meal. 

At the very last moment, people realized that they had extra tickets and they offered one to Tom and a few other people that had originally been snubbed and gave me mine back.  And I went, and I had a good time.  But once again, no sneaking was done.    Considering you had to have a freaking ticket, in order to be let in, sneaking couldn't have been done.

So, let's look at 2007 for a moment as a whole.  There were staff only events through out the year.  The volunteers requested I ask if they could participate, as they had interest, but I advised everyone that it was only for those who'd already signed up as staff and paid their dues.  I made this clear.

There was only one incident where someone snuck in.  It was the staff retreat.  She was snuck in by members of Programming staff she was working with.  And the only reason she wasn't staff at that particular time was because of her age.  Once the age requirement was lowered, she upgraded on the spot.  I didn't bring it up because according to other people in Programming staff, she was considered a staff member other than the fact that her age was an issue with policy. 

So if you wanted to have a beef, someone above those people in programming should have done something about it.  However their director wasn't there, and no one higher up than her did anything about it either.

And one way or another, why would it even matter?  Did she hurt anyone there?  No.  Did she infect us with volunteer cooties?  No.  Other than the fact that it was completely unfair to other volunteers who were on par with her and were still loudly excluded, there wasn't really an issue.

Those volunteers are not making the extra effort, otherwise they would be staff, and we would not be having this discussion. By offering them rights you we would be permitting them to explicitly avoid making the extra effort to obtain the benefits of being staff. You are suggesting that we should extend staff rights to those who explicitly refuse to take the extra effort.

Were you at any point a volunteer?  I'm asking this in all seriousness.   

Let me educate you on the con totem pole as your climb wasn't so difficult.  Not everyone walks into con and says "Hi I want to do this high level position" and has everyone fall at their feet.  Most people start at the bottom of the totem pole, like most any other job, and then work their way up.  A good percentage of people decide to volunteer because they're new, they know very few people on the inner circle, and want to get an idea of what working at a con is like before they jump in head first.  And then there's those that wander into a con, get bored and say "Hi!  Just put me to work." 

I did a decent amount of work in 04, of course I was the latter person stumbling in and asking for something to do since all my friends were working as well.  Maybe I wouldn't have made my goal of honorary staff, but people apparently noticed that I wanted to be helpful. 

I signed up as a volunteer in 05 because I still felt like a relative outsider.  I knew some people, but didn't think I had the kind of experience with the con to get a big position.

By 06, I thought I had enough experience to do some good, but that only goes so far if other people aren't willing to work with you, so I had to fall back on people I knew again.

This year, Brownie gave me a lot of responsibility, and I did the best I could, and worked as hard as I could year round. 

But I don't forget where I started.  And I don't forget that there's someone who's a volunteer who's trying to work their way up just as I did. 

You see, your mistake is that you assume that just because a person doesn't sign up to be staff it's because they don't care.  And unfortunately, your brain is stuck with that syntax, and it doesn't matter how many different ways I explain it to you if you don't ever reprogram.

And, as I've said before, this year we changed our policy in favor of the volunteers and explicitly provided them those benefits.

Well actually it goes more like changed policy right before 07 elections and decided take everything away from the volunteers period, and then decided to give them some benefits again...  But not voting rights.  Remember, we has topic!

I'd like to come back around to speculation here. When we extend all the staff rights to non-staffers, what is the incentive to remain staff?

I will answer your question, but with the following notation  I have never said at any point "give all volunteers all benefits awarded to staff members".  I never even said "give some volunteers all benefits awarded to staff members".  I detailed out specifically what volunteers should get according to hours they put in, and the highest level in no way compares to what I will get as a staff member if I signed up in November. 

But to answer your question directly, if everything was directly equal and the only thing seperating a staff member from a non staff member was a title and a job description, I can think of only one reason to sign up as staff...  The strong desire to want to be in that position so that you can make a difference and help the con through that position.

Which must make me the most awesome staff member ever, because frankly, I don't care about the benefits.  I don't care about titles, or the politics, or power trips, entitlements, the ladders we climb, or the view from the top.  And I certainly don't care about free pizza. 

I signed up for staff because I thought I could do something that would help the con.  Didn't really work out in 06 because I was apparently the staff member that didn't exist. 

But I tried again in 07, and I was able to at least try to change the two things that went the most wrong the previous year.  Reg and Volunteers.  The blood sweat and tears, thousands times over, were for the people who got royally screwed in 06.  And hey, all of those people are non staff. 

While benefits are nice, they're not why I do this job.  And if you give similar benefits to someone else who cares about this convention just as much as I do, then maybe that person deserves it. 

Sure, I know not everyone is half as awesome as me, and sure I know not every single person who signs up as a volunteer is going to be the hard working individual that I am and always have been for this con.  And do staff deserve awesome benefits for everything they do, sure!  And I don't mind accepting appreciation for the work I do.  I also will turn down special benefits offered to me if it means snubbing people I care about. 

This is why I didn't offer all benefits to volunteers that staff have and this is why I set a goal.  You don't like my goal, once again, throw out some other figures.  I'm interested in hearing your ideas that you have for next year.  If you win the election, you'll be the Ops director and the Volunteers will be under your heading.  And I want people to know, if you're in charge of the volunteer coordinator, exactly what you plan to do to work with that individual

Do you realize that it is the staff that carry all the critical roles and that makes this convention happen, not the volunteers, and that the special benefits we give staffers are the only things we offer them in return for their countless hours of labor?

All critical roles belong to staff.  And there is a tree of how critical a job is and what benefits are associated with such. 

For example, the board gets additional special benefits that not all staff members get.  Considering the fact that, contrary to the belief of some directors, board positions are full year jobs, you deserve special benefits for being at the top of the totem pole. 

Staff members such as managers and coordinators down to grunts all get the same benefits, but you get more out of it if you register as staff in November rather than waiting until August, such as the staff Christmas party and the staff retreat.  And it's a good thing because the most important positions, especially managers and coordinators are, or at least should be, full year jobs as well.  The hard part is making sure these jobs are adequately filled by people with a decent amount of experience, which again is the director's job. 

And then you have the volunteers, which according to my plan would be given some sort of consideration depending on amount of time put into the work they're doing, but I've never said that volunteers should get all benefits that staff get.  And if you even go by this year, it was not possible for a volunteer to get access to all of the parties and benefits that staff get because they didn't have opportunities to put in enough time much sooner than May.  And if you up the hours, they probably wouldn't have the chance to get many more hours than that before con itself, further limiting the events they can be included in. 

Voting is not the only "benefit" staff get that volunteers don't.  You have plenty of other things that you've shut the volunteers out of.  This is the only one we've been arguing for.  But with you, it's all extremes.  With you, it's all or nothing. 

And I really don't get how you can say in one arguement that Voting shouldn't be used as a benefit, but then say that if we give it to "non staff" that it means you're giving away all of the benefits staff have.  If you don't want me to think of it as a benefit, quit listing it as such. 

In terms of importance to the convention the staff are absolutely critical, but the volunteers are gravy.

Maybe to you.  Maybe your job doesn't really need a volunteer to help out.  Reg needs volunteers.  Info desk needs volunteers.  Cat Ear creation apparently needs volunteers really badly.  Video Rooms need volunteers.  Cosplay contest needs volunteers as people to help out in the green room, and as stage hands.  Even though Yojimbo is a staff only position, there was apparently a need for volunteers and I was begged for some exceptions.  Gaming needs volunteers.  Set up and Clean up always uses volunteers.  Publicity needs volunteers year round, even this weekend.  Plus the people who just do random odd jobs like running and getting me food because I can't leave the info desk because there's no one else to run it, or the people that I make sit at the info desk for 5 minutes while I go use the little girl's room for the first time in many many hours. 

Looking at numbers, we had on a pretty steady basis 30 volunteers signed up.  As soon as some upgraded, a few more signed up.  Of that approximate 30, by the end of the con, not counting people who upgraded to staff, there were 8 that put in over the goal.  If you decided to up my goal by double to say that 40 hours is what we're looking for, 5 people met/exceeded that.  If you triple it to 60 hours, you have Jaz and Rachael alone at the top. 

Of the people who I've talked to, almost everyone who has hit the 40 hour mark want to be staff next year.  And those above 60 almost definitely want to be staff for us next year. 

How many of these people *would* have been staff this year if situations were different?  IE, hadn't already paid/could have been reimbursed, were told they were too young, etc.  4

And really, these four people are the ones I'd want to give voting rights too, especially if they're going to be staff in 08. 

So no, I'm not talking 50 or 30 or even 8.  Really, I'm most focused on 4 people.  And I must be fricken insane to sit here for hours trying to stand up for 4 people.  But I do it because I care, not because I'm getting anything out of it.

But anyway, with the demand we have for volunteers, you think you'd do something to attract more of them and to keep them feeling happy and appreciated.  They're not just gravy.  They're the glue holding us together at 8 am Monday morning.

And if you did away with volunteers all together and just said, nope staff only from now on, maybe you'd get 4 people out of it, but you lose 26.
 

Sure, we could pare down the staff ranks by removing some questionably non-critical positions, and we should be rewarding the volunteers, (which we already do in excess,) but what should the staff get?

Oh please, do share with all of us what positions you would want to do away with or make volunteer only and why in detail.  I'm not even being facetious.  I really want to know.

Should they get nothing special of their own? That is what you are asking for, isn't it?  Why would anyone want to bother staffing if they get no special recognition above a volunteer?  Where is the incentive to put in 200 or even a thousand hours for the convention above the 20 or 40 you are saying should be required for all the staff rights?

I was going to take these questions individually, but then I realized you just asked me the same question over and over again. 

Once again, you take my words and take them to the farthest extreme you can.

I will state this one last time.

Staff sign up staff gets benefits.

Volunteers sign up, volunteers work, volunteers get some benefits depending on amount of hours they work.

Staff benefits still > volunteer benefits.

I've listed what staff get and I've listed what volunteers get.  Scroll up.  One is not equal to the other, and Volunteer benefits do not meet or exceed staff benefits.  And they certainly don't get benefits without putting in time.

I know you don't like it, and that's why you continue over and over to completely not read what I'm telling you.  I'm really done with explaining it. 

Do you expect people to continue to be complete altruists for no special recognition?

Heh, this one I will answer.

No, I don't expect that of others, but apparently you do expect that of others.  You expect for the volunteers to give up their time to the con, and no matter how many hours they put in, it's not enough for you to give them respect.

And do you realize we have a serious problem this year with staff morale and this only amplifies it?

You are half right.  We have a very serious problem this year with staff morale.  But let's put that blame where it belongs.

It's not the fault of volunteers having benefits. 

I'll tell you what lowers my morale.

Being completely ignored by certain individuals on a regular basis.
Not having emails returned by people I need information from asap.
Not having access to the materials and equipment I need to adequately do my job.
Being promised one thing and being delivered something totally worse.
Being "rewarded" with something that causes me to be violently ill.
Having people I care about be upset because they're not getting the recognition they deserve.
Being talked down to by someone when all I did was ask him a simple question.
Hypocrisy
Asking for something by a certain deadline, and not getting what I request.
Especially when not getting it by the deadline makes it impossible to do my job.
Being given specific instruction of what to do and what not to do to find out later it doesn't matter.
Having someone commit to a job they'll be doing and have them back out
Especially if that means I have to take their place
Not being able to actually enjoy something that I've worked on.
Having important documentation thrown away.
Being asked the same damn thing over and over and over.
Being asked the same damn thing over and over by multiple people.
Not getting answers to questions I have
Getting yelled at for doing my job.
Being in physical pain or being physically ill due to exhaustion
Working overtime at a job for weeks before the con, killing myself over a weekend for a convention, and then going right back to doing over time for the next two weeks after.
Not having time to even talk to my Mother over the phone for the better part of a month because of how hard I'm working.
Not being able to see my fiance for more than five minutes at a time during an entire weekend
Having someone insist that basically I never deserved any of the benefits I received my first 2-3 years of working with this con.

Can the con fix all these problems by fixing policy?  No.  Is there any benefit in the world that would make my issues disappear, or even make up for them?  No. 

Does the fact that I want to give volunteers benefits make any of these worse?  No

In fact, there's a few that probably would be fixed by that.  But that's because I get personally involved with people and get to know these people.  These people were my job for con, or at least they were half of it. 

And if I told you that not a damn thing that you did mattered, I hope you can relate to what that feels like.

[valliegirl]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

I believe the answer to your question Crystal is that tracking the hours is Vallie's job, and Brownie's job to verify and accept the results (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  I think this validates the right of at least having the honorary staff members be able to participate in the voting process, which is what we were aiming for, I do believe.  Thank you so much for posting this.

The verbage used says that refers to the time commitment part of this issue is the only thing that I can see still makes a "Volunteer" not a "voting member" as volunteers have no time commitment at all.  However, there's no in between here.  Non voting members are just attendees by this definition.  Which leaves volunteers undefined.

Which means, the board should vote on amending it anyway in order to have volunteers adequately defined  within the voting section of the by laws.

Which means, a decision should be made.

Also, to make clear, the board never voted on my volunteer incentive plan.  I was told that all I had to do was give it to Brownie for approval as she was my director.  However, I was told later by Staze that it wasn't Brownie's decision, it was the board's, which goes against the chain of command as had been drilled into our heads...

Which was about where I threw my hands in the air in May.

[valliegirl]

  At the same time, Vallie, I do not believe that a vote can be done in the next general meeting for several reasons.  First, with the exception of these forums and personal conversations, many people at the meeting might not know the issues at question and going over them would take a considerable amount of time.  Furthermore, the aforementioned bylaws must be examined first to see what they state on the case and how changes will affect the convention as a whole so that ideas can be generated.  Finally, the next meeting will be seeing a possible change of several staff positions.  The voting, as demonstrated last year, can take some time and any new staffers are going to need to be brought up to date on the current state of affairs before they can make an accurate vote as either an elected Executive or an appointed director.

  So Might I suggest, instead of using this forums to debate importance, work load, or rights of volunteers, use it to propose ideas on how to support the volunteers, encourage them, and, if people want to tackle the subject, how a fair voting system might be put in place for volunteers, or at least honorary volunteers.  A poll of people who support the various ideas, taken from staff and volunteers, might add weight to certain ideas  Then the ideas could be taken to the executives.

  My personal idea might be for this past years executives and directors to grant an honorary staff position to volunteers who turned in a certain number of verified work hours or who worked in certain areas.  I know we didn't verify hours for the most part this year so it isn't a perfect solution but on a limited basis it might be helpful and could provide a standard to work with in the following year.

I do see your point and I appreciate your speaking to this, but the biggest issue I'm having here isn't coming up with ways to show volunteers they're appreciated, but getting the backing from the Board to allow us to actually do so.

I've made up a plan already for volunteer benefits based on hours worked.  The problem is implementation if members of the board do not approve of things I would like to offer. 

I've asked for ideas on how to adjust this only to be met with a point that the numbers really aren't want matter at all, but more that they don't want the amount of benefits I would like to offer.  And even then, beyond telling me I cannot offer voting rights, I've not received additional information on what in my plan is so grandiose that it detracts from what staff members get.

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

And as for something like a fair voting system for volunteers, we can not have that at all if the board will not allow the volunteers that right to begin with.

And that's the short version of the long long long posts.

[superjaz]

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

i really hate the fact that this has been side tracted so much over the benifit debate. I could really care less about perks. What i care about is the volunteers getting treated fairly and by fairly i dont mean a free shirt, but, just the same if some one brings you a cup of water when your thirsty, a thank you
Chris asked me if, at closing ceromonies, year round volunteers had been thanked, (instead of only the volunteers who helped with lines or the clean up) if that simple sentance from the board running closeing ceromonies, would of cleared up some of these issues and yes it would have, because instead it turned into one more count of volunteers getting snubed
which is why i care about the vote, i want to be able to have a say who handles these issues, and it makes sence for the volunteers to have a say in who incharge of them, whos is going to work on them being treated with some small measure of respect, same goes for anyone who intends to be staff

[JeffT]

Here's my tentative proposal for a long-term policy on the staff/volunteer/honorary staff issue. It's not completely thought-out, but I think it addresses the major points at issue in this thread. This is not my final opinion, and I'm open to suggestions and changes.

For 2007, the department directors were supposed to make organizational charts including position descriptions for all the positions in their department. The end visible result of this was the organizational chart posted on the web site, which is also incorporated into the outline view when you log into the web site as staff. Position descriptions were not finished by all the directors, so these were never published.

For 2008,

(1) Make it a requirement for the directors to do this, plus more: All staff positions should not only list the areas of responsibility, but add detail, and add criteria for evaluating whether these requirements have been met--both in total, and at progress points. For some positions, this could be a number of hours. More often, it will be a list of things that have to get done. It should usually incorporate timeline expectations, such as that assigned jobs can have due dates. Certain due dates might be spelled out upon hiring for that the position.

(2) For certain types of work--specifically, those that are mainly

(a) based on time commitment rather than taking on a domain of responsibility,
(b) can be done equally well in small or large amounts, and the "help" to the con is proportional to the time put in, and
(c) don't require a vast background of training

--all of these areas of work should be given a special designation. Rather than becoming automatic "staff" positions, they should fall into a new category. Call it "volunteer", but it's not exactly that. You can become full staff by doing these, but you don't just become staff by doing a little bit of one job.

Rather, the board would decide--on a cross-departmental basis--what requirements you need to fulfill to basically become a "gopher", "grunt", "cross-department mook", "honorary staff", or whatever this position would be called. This might be a minimum hour commitment. Possibly, different jobs would be weighted differently, but unless the nature of the work is extremely different, it would probably all be weighted the same. However, there might be a "variety" requirement--like, this job is less popular, so we need to require that all people holding this new "miscellaneous" staff position do at least a little of it, or at least do it if called upon to.

Shifts for this work would be scheduled in advance; not just hours counted after-the-fact. Give the staff as much discretion as possible as to their choice of position; but if they fail to make a choice, or decline to and are willing to work anywhere, or their choices are unavailable, they can be scheduled where needed. Also, allow them to specify specific shifts they would like to avoid, and we will accomodate them if possible, with the understanding that it is not a guarantee. In exceptional cases, a manager/director may grant a "guaranteed" exemption from working at a specific time if they feel the person earned it in a special way, and they have otherwise fulfilled their requirements.

You could also do any of these jobs not intending to meet the "staff" requirement--for example, if you already held a different staff position, or didn't want to become staff, but just remain a volunteer.

If the board sets the requirements for this "miscellaneous" (or whatever it would be called) staff position in terms of number of shifts or hours, then those who met those requirements prior to becoming staff--meaning while working as volunteers--should have that work count toward the requirement. This means that under this system, theoretically, there could be a point where a volunteer suddenly realizes they have done all the work needed already, and decides to sign the form, become staff, and they don't have to do any more work at all. In practice, this would be unlikely to happen, because the board would set the requirement to include at-con work, and the staff registration deadline passes prior to the con. But if the volunteer had committed to working certain shifts at con, then those commitments should count toward the requirements and the person should be eligible to join staff, prior to the deadline, based on those commitments. Of course, this is under penalty of being punished or removed from staff if the required commitments are not met when the con comes around--the same as any other staff member.

Some of the positions which are currently staff which could probably be moved to this new category are: (non-exhaustive list)

Street Team
Grunt
Mook
Gaming Staff
Reg Desk
Infodesk

Some work which is not currently accounted for by any staff position which could be moved into this new category: (again, non-exhaustive)

Promotional booth manning
Envelope stuffing
Bag stuffing
Pre-con setup
Post-con teardown

The goal of creating the lists in advance is to, as exhaustively as possible, account for work that needs to be done.

(3) For these positions, the directors, with help from their managers, should identify the needs of these positions (like amount of person-hours needed pre-con/at-con), and produce training/instructional documents so new volunteers/staff can quickly get up to speed if needed on the spot.

The advantages of such a system:

• Staff benefits are reserved for those who meet a certain bar of requirements.
• The detailed position descriptions, and criteria for evaluating staff performance, ensure that staff who receive the benefits have really earned them. Ultimately, this is under penalty of being removed from staff. If the worst happens, and it needs to be done, the director (or board) can at least know with confidence that removing the person from staff is justified because they did not meet objective requirements specified in advance.
• By accounting for all the "volunteer-style" work, we can promote to staff those volunteers who commit to performing a set minimum of this work.
• Logistics both prior to, and at-con, are greatly improved, because staff and volunteers can be quickly moved around, including through department barriers, where needed.
• Training documents also ensure the easy movement of staff and volunteers.
• Because staff and volunteers can easily move around between jobs, we lessen feelings of unfairness among staff and volunteers that certain jobs worked far harder than others at the con. If one job is fully staffed, extra staff/volunteers who were working this job can be moved to an understaffed position.
• By consistently accounting for this "volunteer-style" work, we emphasize that these jobs are things that any staff member can do, even if their position description doesn't require it.
  
• Staff and volunteers who want to know how to help the con more can easily see these list of jobs, and know where to go.
• Staff feel more confident in their work because the staff position descriptions spell out in more detail what is expected of them, and they know that other staff are being held to written standards too.

I would support a change in con policy:

Attendees (whether they have as-yet volunteered or not) who upgrade to staff by the normal staff registration deadline should get a refund to the staff rate, based on what they paid whenever they pre-registered. I have heard it argued against this that why should staff be rewarded for signing up late? That's not the point. If you had not pre-registered, then the staff rate is the same regardless of when you signed up as staff. What not refunding does is simply punish for pre-registering as an attendee. Yes, this policy change creates a slight amount of extra paperwork for the con. That's not significant and doesn't matter. The number of people who will do it is probably less than 20. In a year. If you say that then attendees or volunteers will sign up more to get the refund than to help the con, then the only logical thing to argue is to eliminate the staff discount altogether, so everybody, staff and attendee, pays a single rate to attend.

Giving the refund to those who upgrade by the normal staff deadline is a simple matter of consistency in policy and, in my opinion, just basic bookkeeping.


Another small thing that can be done to solve a practical issue involving volunteers:

If a volunteer job requires it, give the volunteer, perhaps only for the duration of their shift, an "access" badge or token, which identifies to attendees and staff that this person has the authority to do the things they are doing. Whether that be being in a space where attendees normally can't be, or telling attendees to do something.


On the subject of voting rights: Earlier in the thread, I stated that I believed that in the elections held in 2006 for the 2007 officers, only staff were allowed to vote. At least two other people stated otherwise. Let me clarify right now that my original statement was based only on personal memory, and I could not find a written record anywhere on whether voting was open to the public for this election. This does not mean such a record doesn't exist, of course. So all I can do is stand by my statement as an honest recollection of my memory, while also stating now that I might be mistaken. For what it's worth, my memory was that it was announced at elections, and only enforced on the honor system. (Again, I could be mis-remembering.)

But now, our current bylaws are clear on the matter that only staff can vote. So the question being debated in this thread is whether the honorary staff, as they exist this year, should be, or should have been, promoted to full staff. This is the only way it can be legally done in accordance with our bylaws.

For future years, I believe that my proposal for the above system mostly addresses this point. For the work that is now largely being done by volunteers, the system accounts for this and sets a known standard for attaining staff status by doing this work.

What my proposal doesn't do, is allow for those volunteers who show up at the con and work a lot of hours they never previously committed to, to become staff on the spot and vote in the elections a month later. I think this point can be open to debate, but I also think if we were to say that at-con staff upgrades are not allowed, it would not be an injustice, because on some level the con needs to draw a line and say that those interested in becoming staff have a certain deadline, set at a few weeks before the con, that they need to meet.

I am fine with volunteers who are not staff having benefits at the con, and not full staff benefits. This rewards those volunteers who show up at the con and work very hard, and also encourages them to join staff for next year, if they'd like to.

As for how to handle the situation this year? I'm really not sure, and don't have a good answer. We tried to have a clear distinction between staff and non-staff this year, and the signed policies document/registration form was the center of that. But, I understand that the honorary staff volunteers who we had were all very hardworking and dedicated. I also understand that there were people on staff who did not do as much as perhaps even the minimum requirement of honorary staff, and certainly not what some of the honorary staff volunteers actually did. So we're in a situation where we either violate our policy of having a signed policies document and only allowing people to join staff for a specific position, or we have the benefits that are given to staff and volunteers out of alignment with what they actually deserve given the work put in. I don't know how to escape that dilemma this year, which is why I'm making the above proposal to fix the problem for future years.

[Darkerlight]

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

i really hate the fact that this has been side tracted so much over the benifit debate. I could really care less about perks. What i care about is the volunteers getting treated fairly and by fairly i dont mean a free shirt, but, just the same if some one brings you a cup of water when your thirsty, a thank you
Chris asked me if, at closing ceromonies, year round volunteers had been thanked, (instead of only the volunteers who helped with lines or the clean up) if that simple sentance from the board running closeing ceromonies, would of cleared up some of these issues and yes it would have, because instead it turned into one more count of volunteers getting snubed
which is why i care about the vote, i want to be able to have a say who handles these issues, and it makes sence for the volunteers to have a say in who incharge of them, whos is going to work on them being treated with some small measure of respect, same goes for anyone who intends to be staff

I agree with Superjaz on this, the entire point of this thread isn't about who gets what swag or goes to what party. Its about respect, getting treated fairly, understanding eachother.

Edit: BTW Jeff, thats a pretty nice system. Thanks for taking the time to put that much thought into it.

[EcchiSpice]

A volunteer can choose when to perform hours, and at what tasks.
A staff member takes on a job title, and is expected to perform whatever hours and tasks are entailed therein, regardless of desire.

A volunteer can leave a task without retribution.
A staff member who does not perform as necessary to fulfill their position requirements may be removed from staff, denied all staff perks, and asked to pay the difference in the cost of entry to the convention.

A volunteer seems to perform admirably because they put in hours without any expectation that they will serve at all.
A staff member who performs admirably receives little recognition, because their investment is considered course of duty, even when they have performed well beyond the minimal requirement.

A volunteer is offered perks as a courtesy and show of appreciation.
A staff member earns and is entitled to a vote.

20 Hours (est.)
Amount of time needed to arrange power drops at con – done by the Exhibitors’ Manager
Average amount of time spent moderating the forums in a month – by Guspasho
Less than one shift performed during the convention - by the Programming AV Manager
Amount of meeting time needed to reallocate the relations department after the director stood down- multiple affected members of staff

All of these examples are mere fractions of time spent by staff members in the course of duty. They took on more responsibility than was necessary, and bore the burden of completion once the task was theirs. Their tasks push the scope of their abilities, take time away from their day jobs and home lives, create stress and health problems undue to an unpaid staff. The idea that any of them is less worthy of a vote than a person who could just stuff envelopes for 20 hours in a year is insulting to the dedication and hard work of the people who step up and take on a position.

At the last board meeting, I will motion to remove street team member, grunt, and mook from the official organizational charts for all future purposes. I will also motion to clean up the language in the current by laws to make it clear that only persons choosing to take on a pre-described staff position with in the official organizational charts will be afforded a vote. It only seems fair.

Meg Uhde
President of Altonimbus Entertainment

2080 hours
Conservative estimate of the time contributed this year by the Convention Chair
I will not see this further discounted.

[rictheron]

  Let me start by saying, how disappointing it is to see so many people arguing and disrespecting others in a discussion on respect and rights.  This goes towards people on both sides of this argument:  Executives, Staff, and Volunteers.  We all work to make this convention happen and we all work hard, be it before the convention, at the convention, after the convention, be it 20 hours in a year or 20 in a day.  This convention can NOT exist without both Staff AND volunteers.  No one is superfluous, everyone is important.  Are we so seperated now, so removed from the idea of us all being 'fans' working on this convention that we can only argue, that we can't just sit down, talk, and come to some agreement?  At the very least, can't we as fellows just respect one another?

[Waffles]

Everything I say may have all ready been covered but I might say it anyways.

 First off let me start by saying and correct me if I am wrong exec no one else please I was in a sense the volunteer cord  for 06, and I did a horrible job. I wasn't ready for it and I put my other staff job in front of it. Truly I am sorry to all the volunteers we scared off because we  well Ihad no plans set out for them. Valli I am sorry to you because if I had done my job right then I  would have been able to help you out with  your plans or given you some sort of idea to go by.

Now on to the climbing the totem pole.
 04 was my First con and I went as a attendee I wanted to volunteer but I didn't go with it in the right way.
 05 I Started off as an attendee and was lucky enough to become a yojimbo which is something they dont do anymore because a yojimbo needs to go through training and proves to the con he/she knows what they are doing.
06 I came back as a Staff member and a yojimbo and was asked to be the volunteer cord I failed at that task.
07 STAFF and Yojimbo Loving every moment of it.
 Truthly I help the con for one reason and one reason alone, I love you guys. This convention makes me truly happy i enjoy the time I get to spend with everyone and I am sad to leave it every year.
Now I work my ass off for a couple reason and thats because I have trouble making it to every meeting. Living in bend makes it hard to come over to Portland sales or Eugene during the winter. I have had many people get in horrible accidents during the winter and its hazardous for myself and the other GS members to travel.

Now for the voting on volunteers If a volunteer coordinator has been during their job then they have contacts for all the volunteers and maybe he/she could speak for them during the elections instead of having say another 60 people  voting who don't know the complete inside of the convention.

Also vallie on a side note where you said the volunteers helped the yojimbo yes they did but thats because as an Yojimbo you also get called to do stuff thats not in your department and we go and help everybody.

Finally about the benefits I think I went up to con suite twice, If that and i knew of staff that never went up there. Also in 06 I was lucky enough to be asked to go to the dinner  but many of my friends didn't get the invite I went but I did feel bad so I went to the yojimbo party after that and well what happened there stays there except for the Pictures ^.^ Really the thing I liked most and the only reason I liked it was it gave  a group of individuals a long time to get it was the yojimbo badge. and maybe next year we can help get the volunteers a badge of their own.


                     Oh yeah Vallie can I have a Button>?

[valliegirl]

^_^

I've more than forgiven you, Waffles, for what happened in 06, and I apologize for anything I said that might have implied that I hold fault with you for what happened that year.  I respect you stepping up and accepting the fault though.  The biggest issue I think we've got in this con is too many people trying to pull double duty (or some higher multiple above).  Sometimes, you do what you can with what you've got though.

Waffles, even though we run in different circles (like chicken, with our heads cut off, like everyone else during con), you are one of the people who has become a staple of the con and I respect you a lot and have noticed and appreciate everything you do for the con, no matter what status or job you hold.   I know that all of us involved with the con love you too. 

As for your suggestion, you're right, and it's really a good idea for me to open up my vote to the people who would have been Honorary Staff, and get a concession of who the majority would like my vote given to. 

I was planning to vote with their interest in mind, but you've got a great point as well and I will discuss it with them further in email.

On a note about what I said about volunteers helping Yojimbo, please keep in mind, I know how spread thin you guys are, especially by Monday morning at 8 am.  And I'm not saying that I don't want the volunteers to help you, and I did send as many people I could your way as I could once I was made aware of your situation...  For me though, it was more a point of Yojimbo being for multiple years now a strictly staff only position.  If we're putting in random staff members to fill your shoes, it works with policy, but if you're asking for volunteers, I have to make sure I'm covering my butt as well so that I'm not being yelled at once people find out we've got non staff acting in a Yojimbo capacity.  And in one extreme case I absolutely needed Brownie or Jess's direct approval, which ever one was lucid enough to give approval at that particular time.   

So, in closing, no hard feelings, you are awesome, and yes, when you show up at the elections, you may have one of my really lame buttons. 

It'll have to be one of the regular volunteer buttons though.  I don't have any more Honorary Staff ones.  I only made a few by May and then I quit making any more since I didn't really see the point if the title wouldn't be recognized.  Maybe if I ask nice and give her candy Jaz will give you hers.  ^_^

One last general statement, to everyone involved with this thread, I apologize for the escalation of the discussion.

I recognize that there are valid arguements and opinions on both sides.  I was hoping by expressing mine, we could have lively debate, perhaps negotiation.  Maybe if one didn't like my plan one could tell me what could have been done to make it better, other than abolish is completely.  Of course there are very strong feelings on both sides.  It happens in politics.  And then stuff got personal.  I did not mean by anything that I said to imply that staff and execs don't work hard, or to put down the effort any of us put into it.

I certainly did not mean at any point to say that Meg and Rian specifically didn't work their asses off for us.

Because they did...  Every day.  I know it for a fact.  And yes, everyone needs to be given the appreciation and respect they deserve for the job they do.

And by everyone, you know what I mean.  I'm stopping because what's done is, for the most part done.  Those in charge are going to do what they believe is in the best interest of the con.  And apparently, there's not a lot else to be said.

And whether I agree or not, you are the ones we put our faith in to make said decisions for us, and I'll hope the outcome is favorable to the entire con for the coming year.  That's basically the best I can ask for.

If anyone wishes to talk to me further about anything regarding this, please just email me privately.  I'll read responses on here, but unless specifically invoked, I'm avoiding further comment out of respect.

Also, to Jeff, as Jaz said earlier, thank you for the thought you've put into your proposal.  I think it's excellent and definitely deserves consideration for future years.

[superjaz]

p.s.

  Maybe if I ask nice and give her candy Jaz will give you hers.  ^_^

so not gonna happen

me <3  lame button <3 i tell you <3!!!!!

[MichaelEvans]

First, I think the system that Jeff proposed in reply #60 is a very excellent one.  It would even allow for the development of an automated needs clearing system where by anyone with free time and access to the Internet (we could also have this accessible in the con suite and/or info desk with and/or operations with a little planning) could check for where they could help out, or verify their current schedule.  The only communication that may be necessary would be approval for whoever is responsible for that need, but some kind of 'I'll try to help out' notice, and possible remote approval or a referral to the correct area to speak in person could work.

Second, Jeff's system really does sound fair.  Earlier I had asked what the difference between the Honorary Staff and actual Staff was.  It sounds very much like there are a small number of individuals who were willing to, and did their best to commit to, a staff level of commitment, without the paperwork to let them take on higher responsibility jobs. So...

Is there anything preventing those who have shown such a level of commitment, who also want to commit to being staff in 2008, from registering as staff for 2008 before the vote, and then being allowed to vote in the 2008 elections?  Even if there is something, this may be an important enough mistake in classification this year to warrant some kind of special dispensation to allow that to happen. (Be it late staff registration/upgrade for 2007 without any other benefits etc...)

If I continue to have free time tonight, I'll probably look over the bylaws to see if they provide an answer.

- Edited under here -

Possible reasons 'Honorary Staff' are not voting members:
Article 5.
Section A: Members must submit a written membership application in the form (why is this not A form?) approved by the Board of Directors.
Section B: Voting members must volunteer time to staff events at a level determined by the Board of Directors. (What is that level again?)
Section C: Dues, though I do believe that attendee dues are higher then staff dues...

[superjaz]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

[MichaelEvans]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

Actually, it seems to be a surprisingly small list of requirements.  I also think the only reason for a deadline on staff registration is the pre-con paperwork.  So the only thing that couldn't be changed at this juncture is how many hours were donated at con... However if you sign up for next year's con, then I personally don't see why you can't sign up now, as opposed to two months from now, and be able to vote.   It might be written down elsewhere, and it's definitely not my decision, so all I can do is reiterate: There seem to only be those three items I listed standing in the way.  Each of which could have already been met, or could be met in a few moments of work.

[superjaz]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

i would like to state here that the puppy is just that a puppy, it is not a symbol for a perk or volunteers right to vote, it is just a puppy
small furry perfurably pug or welsh corgie or weener or boston terrier, answering to the name pickles, princess pickles, mr beefy, sniffles, lina pickles, kujo, or herclelese, or momiji

[MichaelEvans]

Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were using a metaphor.

[RoamingGnome]

Here is Super Pug for SuperJaz

[superjaz]

aww!!!!! almost perfect, it would be if it were dressed as bat man!!!!1

[RoamingGnome]

Your wish is my command.  HERE IS BATMAN PUG!!!!!

[superjaz]

!!!!yes!!!!!!!!

yay da da bat-dog!!!!!

(chris says he's scared, i dont know why...?)

[valliegirl]

Actually, it seems to be a surprisingly small list of requirements.  I also think the only reason for a deadline on staff registration is the pre-con paperwork.  So the only thing that couldn't be changed at this juncture is how many hours were donated at con... However if you sign up for next year's con, then I personally don't see why you can't sign up now, as opposed to two months from now, and be able to vote.   It might be written down elsewhere, and it's definitely not my decision, so all I can do is reiterate: There seem to only be those three items I listed standing in the way.  Each of which could have already been met, or could be met in a few moments of work.

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

[MichaelEvans]

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

The only benefit for 2007 staff registration left in my mind is the right to vote.  Is there some reason it would be impossible to recognize someone as 2007 staff if the only thing they lack at the moment is signoff on that one form?  Obviously at this point it's too late to fulfill volunteer hours if they failed that criteria, anyone who attended the con period probably Should be considered as having paid their dues, so that one fact is really all I can see that is different.

[Hawkeye]

That's an interesting point indeed, how do we deal with that?

[MichaelEvans]

Facts recap

(My prior examination of the bylaws we are currently using)

Possible reasons 'Honorary Staff' are not voting members:
Article 5.
Section A: Members must submit a written membership application in the form (why is this not A form?) approved by the Board of Directors.
Section B: Voting members must volunteer time to staff events at a level determined by the Board of Directors. (What is that level again?)
Section C: Dues, though I do believe that attendee dues are higher then staff dues...

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

The only benefit for 2007 staff registration left in my mind is the right to vote.  Is there some reason it would be impossible to recognize someone as 2007 staff if the only thing they lack at the moment is signoff on that one form?  Obviously at this point it's too late to fulfill volunteer hours if they failed that criteria, anyone who attended the con period probably Should be considered as having paid their dues, so that one fact is really all I can see that is different.

Which is what should be kept in mind as further discussion occurs.  Questions not currently answered within this thread...

• Pre-Con hour requirements for anyone to qualify as staff?
• During-Con hour requirements for anyone to qualify as staff? (Might be based on department... so this question should further be within the scope of the department volunteers report to.)
• If the higher registration fee for normal con attendance counts as meeting or surpassing staff dues.
• If it is still not to late to recognize that someone probably should have been signed up as staff at an earlier point (when it was clear they'd passed beyond volunteer commitment level).

[JeffT]

I don't have time at the immediate moment to directly answer all of those questions, but keep this in mind: All staff were required to sign up for a specific position in particular. The requirements of any position are determined, ultimately, by the director of the department in which the position is located.

We had set a deadline on staff registrations as being the second-to-last general meeting. This could be changed for future years but it's not really fair to change it after the fact now, for 2007. That is not to say that the current system is completely fair--but we'd be backtracking on a stated policy if we were to sign up new people as staff now, for 2007. It's also unusual to post-promote people to staff in this manner. Keep in mind it's common at most cons to have volunteers who aren't staff.

Attendee dues did satisfy staff dues this year, even though refunds for the difference were not given. If somebody resigned as staff mid-year and then decided to attend the con, then I would think they would have to pay the difference. I don't think that ever happened, though.

[MichaelEvans]

In that case, the organizational charts show the most direct Director for volunteers being Operations.  I think that means it'd be Brownie's decision if they even could have qualified as staff or not.

Hindsight being 20/20, the most logical path should have been to encourage any volunteer who would have put in such a high level of commitment, to be assigned as Mook or Staff Preservation under Operations.

[TomtheFanboy]

In that case, the organizational charts show the most direct Director for volunteers being Operations.  I think that means it'd be Brownie's decision if they even could have qualified as staff or not.

Brownie approved these people as staff in February. In May it was declared that the board had to vote on this issue and it wasn't the decision of any one staff member; be they Manager, Director, or even Chair. The board has only had quorum (the number of members needed to vote) twice since then. Once at the minicon and again at the convention itself. Neither time did the board meet to have an actual vote. Meg has declared that the board will meet and vote on the ratified bylaws before the elections. Once they've voted the issue will be decided, forever, and that will be that.

Edit: It has been pointed out to me that the bylaws state otherwise. However only the board can put forth an amendment to the bylaws, even if they can't ratify them completely. There is other evidence that as been presented to me on this issue that I have yet to verify. None of this effects the actual issue though.

I'm probably going to lock down this thread later this week since we're not getting any new information and the other members of the board who have remained silent up until now aren't likely to post.

[valliegirl]

One final note from the person who designed the incentive plan.

The status of "Honorary Staff" was not meant to actually be equal to or interchangeable with the status of "Staff".  By hitting that 20 hour mark, the incentive provided would have given you *some* benefits provided to staff, but not all. 

When Brownie signed off in February, she was not signing off on all of the people who hit 20 hours becoming staff members.  And whether she did or not, as Tom pointed out, is besides the point now as neither she or I apparently had the approval to create such an official status.

However, I will say that something has been brought to my attention by Meg and Ryan that may help on the voting right front for those who surpassed 20 hours in 2007.  I will speak to this further once a final plan has been made.

[rictheron]

  Well then just one last note before this is closed for those who have not read the bylaws thoroughly.  The board can approve changes to the bylaws and 2/3rds majority vote of the Membership, not just the board or a quorum, can actually pass it into being (see Article 3b). and any vote of the Membership must be made public notice no less then 7 days prior then the meeting when the vote will be held (see Article 5e).  On an additional note, policy does no over ride the bylaws.  So remember, we are all part of the process.

[superjaz]

and one MORE last note from one of the volunteers who is of the "honoray staff" and randon peep who makes cookies for the meeting


peanut butter or chocolat chip? or mystery suprise?

[valliegirl]

We have a resolution for those who have reached the 20 hour goal of volunteer hours.

The date and location of the elections hasn't been announced yet, but I've been told that if those who hit 20 hours of volunteering time show up early to election, we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election.  This offer was made by the Secretary, Ryan Stasel, and you would all be technically staff under him.  If you are there, we'll have you sign on the staff reg form and you'll be staff for the purposes of voting.  This is for 2007 only, and further discussion of volunteer benefits of 2008 will be discussed further at a later time. 

Thank you all for your patience and hard work this year.  I will be updating you all via email once the date and location have officially been announced.

Again, for the record, I have the following people listed as reaching the 20 hour goal for 2007.

Rachael Kirkland
Jasmine Lady
Patrick King
Morgan Woods
Chris Sept
Chris Merritt
Derek Hayes
Wendy Gleason


Oh and Jaz, I would like chocolate chip cookies please.

[superjaz]

we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election. 

2 questions


1) this dosen't count as rgistering for staff for next year right, this is just for 07 right

2) do we have to pay 10$?

sounds like a good offer, we do plan to atend the meeting once it has a time

@vallie
as you wish

[JeffT]

Meg has declared that the board will meet and vote on the ratified bylaws before the elections. Once they've voted the issue will be decided, forever, and that will be that.

Unless this was very recent, plans have changed. The bylaws committee is not yet finished with the draft, and then we need the whole board to look it over, have a period for staff (or public) comment, and perhaps have a lawyer look it over. This won't happen before elections. There is an amendment to the bylaws we are looking at passing before (or just after) elections, but at the moment the proposed amendment only deals with a single issue: changing the requirements for board quorum, because this is an urgent issue which prevents meetings from being held where the board can vote on anything at all.

Furthermore, the bylaws might leave the issue open-ended, which means the board can set or change the issue in the future through a normal board resolution (requiring majority of a board vote).

Any board motion to change the bylaws cannot directly change the bylaws because the bylaws themselves specify how the bylaws can be changed. Although it's ambiguous right now on whether a staff vote is required or a board vote, the plan is to have a staff vote. All a motion can do is provide instructions to the bylaws committee to incorporate wording into its draft. It is then subject to board and staff review, and ratification (or rejection).

[valliegirl]

we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election. 

2 questions


1) this dosen't count as rgistering for staff for next year right, this is just for 07 right

2) do we have to pay 10$?

sounds like a good offer, we do plan to atend the meeting once it has a time

@vallie
as you wish

1)  2007 only.  This does not make you staff for 08.  Basically, it makes you staff for purposes of election, and then after the election, none of us are really staff anymore until we sign up with the newly elected director.

2)  No.  All of you have already been registered as attendees and therefore have already paid your monetary dues.