SCOTT: do we know how to make that distinction?
Jessica: Kitty and Sean does
Questions on what constitutes staff and what constitutes Contractors
SCOTT: lets get that nailed down. As long as we are showing progress, we will be all right. We are starting a private audit. FR, BP, and Trail Advocacy combined tips the scale and we have to go for an audit. It’s more extensive and more expensive. It’s not the IRS; we have to hire someone to do it.
Andalusia: who is doing it?
SCOTT: we have to hire someone
LOU: in terms of insurance, we know that there will be issues. What kinds of procedures are in place to protect BP?
Jessica: we have two waivers one for people who staff the shop, and one for people who buy bikes
LOU: what is the process?
Jessica: in theory when the first encounter these people sign a waiver and we keep it.
LOU: How do you prevent being swarmed and forgetting to take waivers?
Andalusia: the new tool box check out system prevents this
__Fiscal sponsorship Discussion__
Jessica: did people get a chance to read that email about what a fiscal sponsorship is? Are there questions?
LOU: one was straightforward. That one seemed like a good choice.
Sean: plain language would be beneficial for rotations of members.
SCOTT: a lot we could do. Most fiscal sponsorship agreements are based on what these organizations do for each other. We pay taxes on your grants, that is where fees come from, administrative work. Other items, volunteer for membership, etc. is fine.
Jessica: might be useful to look through these. Percentage is a simple way to deal with financial
FarL: when it comes from choosing an example, using Kitty would be good. Because Audit will include investigation of fiscal agreement
SCOTT: we like how you run, you like how you run, but in terms of the audit it is difficult because many gov. organizations don’t understand collective organization.
Jess: in west some lawyers are beginning to use collective in legalese.
SCOTT:
Jess could use a lawyer.
Dave: Dave Corman?
SCOTT: he is too busy, due to travel.
LOU: how do we deal with the sub committee?
SCOTT: subcommittee for?
LOU: devise fiscal sponsorship
Stuart: do we need this in place for the youthworks grant?
Sean: how long does it take to illustrate our current agreement?
SCOTT: it has to be in legalese
Jessica: rather not get a simple one and then re write it.
SCOTT: let me be the liaison from bike Pittsburgh to work this out? We sit down with Kitty and a lawyer in order to hammer this out
Jessica: yes, but wants to take it to the collective.
SCOTT: I like what Seans saying to get a draft first and see where that goes. I get nervous these things seem like they should be written up in legalese. In order to cover our butts.
Stuart: doesn’t understand how we can write this down because we don’t know how these things work currently. Not only for when they work well, but when they don’t
SCOTT: With members’ fluid attendance this will be important.
Jessica: make a draft, collective can respond to it, then legalese draft, the collective can respond to that and then done.
SCOTT: Are we going to get through governance right now?
Proposal: input gathering phase, subcommittee creates a draft, circulates a draft, both org. give comments, write in legalese, circulate a draft. Consensus
Sub-committee: Erok Morgan Jessica Stewart, Scott.
LOU: back track. Stewart mentioned governance, does that have a role in our fiscal sponsorship?
Jessica: it interacts in “who reports”
SCOTT: that will play a role in our strategic plan.
Jessica: Jessica gives background of FR retreat, including a list of Free Ride's concerns with BP.
Stuart: what is the BP advantage of having free ride as a fiscal sponsor; rather than Free Ride having another organization sponsors us?
SCOTT: haven’t thought of this. We both are bikes. Free rides is on the ground, a friendly face of getting people on bikes, we are mostly an office. Free Ride is a great outreach component of bike Pittsburgh. Makes sense for you because you can write grants on our 501c3. Getting people on bicycles is key, a huge part of advocacy.
Dave: adds an element of credibility to bike Pittsburgh. Many organizations look for the social aspects of advocacy group. Which are things that FR does and are good to be seen with BP.
EROK: Many people going to FR become members for BP
Dave: power in numbers. Bike Pittsburgh is able to move faster with city and funding agencies with FR
SCOTT: and vice versa. You can get Bike Pittsburgh there.
LOU: they are a perfect fit, but if FR needs to grow on its own, then that’s fine for BP that doesn’t mean that our commitment to one another evaporates. Erok and Andalusia mention that it is unusual for bike advocacy and bike recycle to get along. We support you and if you need to grow outside of us.
Stewart: You are figuring out your process, and we are figuring out ours and I wonder if we can interact better if we are not under a fiscal sponsor agreement.
SCOTT: have you talked to the Merton center? Maybe you should talk to them
Andalusia:
SCOTT: we are new at this too. We are concerned about being imploded by legal matters. These are legitimate concerns. We can either dive in together or you can work with us. But we will support you if you decide you would like to strike out on your own. But we have to have a commitment if we are going to a long-term project. Do we invest the time and effort if it takes long to decide Suggest a 2-year commitment?
Dave: If in a long term agreement you find you would like to strike off you can because most fiscal agreements include exit clause
Andalusia: we have not decided this ourselves. This was out on the table: that we wanted to become our own 501c3
SCOTT: the only fiscal thing that is complicating right now is the youthworks grant.
For this year we’re on.
Stewart: we did reach a consensus, but we
Andalusia: what does 3-year strategic planning mean
Scott: most non-profits do this in order to show foundations that they have a far-reaching plan. We do this in order to have a strategy to get from point A to point B; like a chess game.
Jess: it forces you to decide your long term plans
SCOTT: allows for fluid board
Andalusia: does it mean that you will need our involvement for grant writing?
SCOTT: not so much, more for important for when you are writing grants
Dave: a road map that lets your organization know where to go.
Jess: we could put long-term collaboration in our plan.
Morgan: a lot of concerns raised at retreat, were organizational identity etc. specifically: character of the organization. Bike Pittsburgh is set up more mainstream hierarchical. Tension between not-for-profit versus Bike Pittsburgh.
Stewart: we operate on consensus; if traffic lights were taken to council it wouldn’t have passed. How do we deal with that?
SCOTT: can put disclaimers that not every decision made by Bike Pittsburgh reflect Free Ride and vice versa. This will be easier once we have liaisons, but we will never figure it out and we don’t have to. If we are fluid and have better communication.
Dave: is there a concern that bike Pittsburgh will portray free ride in a way that free ride is not comfortable with?
Andalusia: BP has board members that have never been to Free Ride and don’t know what we are like. If someone asks a Bike Pittsburgh board member to describe Free Ride. Require they have a response that both organizations approve of.
SCOTT: many corporations have press that will outline how to communicate other org. to public
Brad branding
SCOTT: Allegheny conference has money and they have earmarked money for bikes, but FR might have some serious qualms with each other schmoozing. Need to have a way to disclaim that one organization does not totally represent the other (I’m not sure if I got that right—Matt.)
Andalusia: need to clarify, that executive directors don’t steer decisions: example: church started talking to Scott: when Andalusia mentioned that free ride was a part of BP
Dave: a few years ago, said, FR was happy with what BP was doing, because BP will fight in the boardroom, while BP allows FR to do what it wants. We were good with allowing each other to do what each other wants to do. Hope that those feelings persist today.
Morgan: use the stack
Jess: This is something we need to be conscious of. So you’re going to pursue money from Allegheny conference. How doe we interface? Membership and marketing committee to (????—Matt)
Brad: voices both public and private. We run into problems that organizations receive communication etc. meant for the other organization. In terms of projects etc. Merton center does a good job of avoiding confusing projects with other sub projects.
Morgan: worry that a more hierarchical organization will ultimately head away from what free ride believes in. Have you outlined guidelines to what you will not accept? Ex: How do you get on the board? Whose money do you
SCOTT: no official screening process for grants. If British Petroleum came to use with money we would look at it but we would take it case by case.
Morgan: what % funds coming from members?
SCOTT: consider membership most important source of revenue because represents should never get more than a 1/3 from foundations, members 1/3 and fundraising 1/3.
Stewart: need to understand…taking inventory would not be a way to get free ride to run. If board thought it was necessary, how could we address it? How do we address you when you give us instructions we don’t like? The positions we’re negotiating from. Being an autonomous org. feels better than being a fiscal sponsor. Essential to feeling able to deal with discrepancies
SCOTT: not hear to talk you into things that you don’t want to do. We can stay working partners
Matt: sums up
SCOTT: how do we define this? Officially in my mind FR is a project of BP.
Scott: needs to have someone to refer people and journalists to in order to do certain things. How much info do we give? What are we permitted to say about you and you to say about us?
Dave: back to Morgan said. Example dasani/coke offered blue bikes, BP suggested that FR could repair bikes. FR said that would not be possible. We value FR opinion. It would be valuable for FR delegate to come to BP board meeting. Gain an understanding that we don’t have hostile feelings towards FR
SCOTT: we don’t have an agenda for free ride
Dave: spend more time together
Jess: BP is figuring these things out. Subcommittees are organizing. One is conflict resolution, and that would be good to use for BP and FR relationship.
Jess: we now are fleshing out our structure. Based on our bylaws.
SCOTT: it would be nice to have a list. Ex. This person is marketing this person is internal.
Erok: the board members who are here are already our allies, what about the people who aren’t here? The combative ones aren’t even here.
SCOTT: we are really trying to nail down our own personal relationships. Just recently in the fall came up with leads for marketing and advertising. We are working on it. How do you identify with other people? Need to have more get together.
Stuart: our process to interact with other organizations needs to be re-vamped. Asking: do liaisons work for us, do we have open meetings, etc.
Morgan: have a concern that your desire to have a go-to person is against our organizational ethic. Worried that by meeting you half way we become more of what we don’t want. Wants to make these two traditions mesh together.
Dave: works for Nat’l org. that works with local cooperatives. Pburgh is unique in its structure. It is a model for this organization that should be exported to the public perception.
Jessica: Understand each other’s commitment to: actively anti-racist, anti-sexist. Asking if …
Andalusia: collective structure is as important as recycling bicycles.
SCOTT: so. Part of your identity is that you are a collective
Jess:
SCOTT: trying to address respect issues within the board.
Andalusia: it is important to show that just because we are part of a volunteer org. volunteer work being seen as legitimate.
Brad. Why don’t we try to implement a voice for free ride on the board meetings?
SCOTT:
Erok: I am that default liaison.
Jess: what can we do that can get people together and have people discuss this relationship.
Round Table Suggestions:
Erok: come to the FR shop
Stuart: make BP board meetings open to FR collective members
Andalusia: possibly a social night
Dave; like Erok and Stuarts ideas. Just the board one night at free ride. Go through the whole orientation
Scott: not against more FR at the meetings. Historically long painfully long meetings 3-4 hours long. T’aza doro, enroll in a class with Erok.
Brad: forcing the issue, a BP meeting at FR. Have board members have to have an orientation. Bureaucracy.
Morgan: Erok's idea, but open shop would be better because that’s what we do.
Sean: nothing to add
Brad: free ride would be nice to have a portion on the BP newsletter.
Jess: needs to streamline our internal communication and then inter-org. comm.
SCOTT: sculpting info we put out there
Dave: I’ve been gone but the things going on here are really valuable. Even if you don’t think that things are going well or fast enough, compared to other organizations you are doing well.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.