[Usittne] USITT new england dues structure

Mon Apr 10 14:21:37 EDT 2006

Hello, All,
I also agree with what Ron has written. Makes sense to me.
Judy Staicer

-----Original Message-----
>From: Rafael Jaen <Rafael_Jaen at emerson.edu>
>Sent: Apr 10, 2006 2:06 PM
>To: USITT New England Section Mail List <usittne at mit.edu>, tiala at mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: [Usittne] USITT new england dues structure
>
>Greetings!
>I agree and trust that we'll arrive to an arrangement that is good for
>all involved.
>Crystal: Thank you for heading this initiative and always taking care of
>our region.
>Best,
>
>Rafael Jaen
>Emerson College
>Costume Area Head
>Theatre Design and Technology
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: usittne-bounces at mit.edu [mailto:usittne-bounces at mit.edu] On Behalf
>Of Clyde Tyndale
>Sent: Monday, April 10, 2006 11:05 AM
>To: USITT New England Section Mail List; tiala at mindspring.com
>Subject: Re: [Usittne] USITT new england dues structure
>
>Sounds to me like Ron's got it covered.
>
>I'd go with his suggestions
>
>Clyde Tyndale
>
>Falmouth Academy
>Stagecraft Teacher
>Technical director
>Performance Space Manager
>ctyndale at cape.com
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: <ron.dallas at teradyne.com>
>To: <tiala at mindspring.com>; "USITT New England Section Mail List" 
><usittne at mit.edu>
>Sent: 04/10/2006 9:36 AM
>Subject: Re: [Usittne] USITT new england dues structure
>
>
>> Crystal,
>> As mentioned in the letter, this has come up almost annually at the 
>> USITTmeeting. I knowit came up when I attended a Chairs meeting and
>that 
>> was a very long timeago.  It would beinteresting to know if this is
>coming 
>> from the National office or from oneor more sections. If itis from a 
>> section, what problems to they currently have that would besolved by
>this?
>> As to the proposals-#1 is the current state of things.  We (USITT-NE)
>do 
>> not have a problemwith our currentsystem which works well with the
>small 
>> size of the section. I have amultipage EXCELspreadsheet that contains
>the 
>> member info, the bank account ledger, and afinancial report.There are
>some 
>> cross checks and summary generation built into the sheet andit would 
>> beeasy to transfer to a new person.
>> #2 and #3 may require sections to be non-profit organizations. While 
>> thisis not a problemfor USITT-NE since we are already a non-profit, it
>may 
>> be for othersections.  The topic ofnon-profit status and whether
>sections 
>> come under the umbrella of theNational non-profit status has come up
>at 
>> prior Section Chairs meetings.  A keyrequirement of umbrellacoverage
>is 
>> financial accountability and financial control by the parentover the 
>> child.  Ifeither of these two proposals are seriously considered, the
>idea 
>> ofumbrella coverageshould also be considered.
>> Some sections may not want, or have the resources, to become 
>> non-profits.If they dobecome non-profits, they need to have resources
>to 
>> handle the variousannual reportsnecessary.  It seems that we are
>trading 
>> membership management for legalreportingmanagement, at least for
>groups 
>> that are not currently non-profitorganizations.
>> Proposal #2 allows sections to have members that are NOT National 
>> members.Somesections prefer this and I think this is an important
>feature 
>> of sections.Proposal #3 doesnot allow for section only memberships.
>> How would "membership" funds be assigned to sections in proposal #3? 
>> Noadditionalmoney is collected and members can select multiple
>sections. 
>> Do the basicdues haveto go up to support this.
>> My vote on these 3 proposals is that only #1 is viable. The others
>seem 
>> torequiresection non-profit status and I would not want to force that
>on a 
>> section.Proposal #3 isparticularly bad in that there can not be 
>> independent section members.
>> I propose an additional option.  The National office provides software
>
>> tothe sectionsfor membership and account management.  This has the
>benefit 
>> of a standardsystemfor these functions that has support when the
>section 
>> officers change.  Bytailoring thesoftware to USITT needs and
>functions, it 
>> can generate annual sectionreports andfacilitate the exchange of 
>> information between the sections and thenational organization.Sections
>
>> would still have to do their own data entry and cash management,but 
>> thenational office could provide training and help as needed to the 
>> section,especiallywhen officers change.  With good communications
>between 
>> the section andnationaloffice software, it is possible that the
>national 
>> office could handlemailing of renewalnotices for the sections.
>> ---------------------------Ron DallasDesign Technology Group,
>Teradyne, 
>> Inc.ph: 617-422-2585e-mail: ron.dallas at teradyne.com
>> usittne-bounces at mit.edu wrote on 04/09/2006 10:50:59 AM:
>>> Hi all,> Below is information regarding potentional changes in our 
>>> methods> of collecting regional dues that was proposed at the Chairs>
>
>>> meeting in Louisville.  I would like your input.  Please read the>
>info 
>>> below and tell me if you feel one option would benefit or> hinder us
>more 
>>> than another.  thanks,> Crystal>> Dues Structure proposal>> Rational
>for 
>>> proposals> The sections enjoy their autonomy.  Historically it has
>been> 
>>> important to the sections that they are able to do their own>
>planning, 
>>> to keep track of their own members and finances, and to> leave it up
>to 
>>> their members whether or not to hold national> memberships in
>addition to 
>>> the section memberships.>> There are difficulties though, and not all
>the 
>>> sections have been> equally successful in dealing with those 
>>> difficulties.  Some> sections have no problems maintaining an
>accurate 
>>> and useful> database of their membership.  Other sections spend a
>great 
>>> deal> of time and effort on their membership tracking, or have> 
>>> difficulty transferring information when section officers change> or
>have 
>>> difficulty finding officers willing to do the work of> maintaining
>the 
>>> membership lists.  Generating and/or sending out> renewal notices can
>be 
>>> an additional burden in this area, which> can mean that some sections
>are 
>>> "carrying" members who haven't> actually renewed for some time. (Not
>all 
>>> sections mind that.)>> Whenever these issues are discussed, (usually
>once 
>>> a year at the> Annual Conference) the question arises about whether
>the 
>>> National> office could handle all memberships.  I have tried to 
>>> summarize> the advantages and disadvantages of the current system,
>and 
>>> the> two other systems that are most typically discussed in the Dues>
>
>>> Structure Proposal Summation.  The rest of this document explains>
>those 
>>> three systems as 3 possible proposals.>>> Proposal 1 - leave things
>as 
>>> they currently are.> No changes.>> To support this:> The VP Members, 
>>> Sections & Chapters would need to find resources> (program 
>>> recommendations, training, etc) to help those sections> that want or
>need 
>>> it to handle their database issues more effectively.>>> Proposal 2 -
>Have 
>>> the National office maintain one master database.> Membership 
>>> applications would provide space for national and each> of the
>regional 
>>> sections.  Anyone wishing to apply for membership> in any of the 
>>> organizations would fill out one form, checking> boxes for which 
>>> memberships they wished to have.  After adding up> all the membership
>
>>> fees, one check would be written.  It would be> possible to apply for
>
>>> national alone, a regional section alone, or> any combination of
>national 
>>> and regional sections.  Renewal> notices would go out from the USITT 
>>> office. Sections would receive> their dues from the national office
>on a 
>>> regular basis.>> To obtain a list of members, officers of a regional 
>>> section would> request either a set of mailing labels by mail, or a 
>>> comma> delineated list by email or regular mail.>> All sections
>would, 
>>> most likely, have to become official not-for-> profit organizations
>if 
>>> they are not already.>> To support this:> The USITT Board would need
>to 
>>> find additional resources to handle> the additional staff workload.>
>A 
>>> process for distribution of section membership monies in an>
>efficient, 
>>> timely manner would need to be developed.>>> Proposal 3 - Have
>section 
>>> membership be automatic with a nationalmembership> When filling out a
>
>>> membership application for national membership,> a member could check
>
>>> whatever regional sections they wished to be> affiliated with at no 
>>> additional cost.  National membership> renewal would automatically
>renew 
>>> the regional affiliations> desired as well.  It would not be possible
>to 
>>> be a member of a> regional section only.>> To obtain a list of
>members, 
>>> officers of a regional section would> request either a set of mailing
>
>>> labels by mail, or a comma> delineated list by email or regular
>mail.>> 
>>> All sections would, most likely, have to become official nor-for->
>profit 
>>> organizations if they are not already.>>[Section showing comparison
>table 
>>> deleted - rfd]>> Crystal Tiala> tiala at mindspring.com> EarthLink
>Revolves 
>>> Around You.>  _______________________________________________>
>USITTNE 
>>> mailing list> USITTNE at mit.edu> 
>>> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/usittne
>> _______________________________________________USITTNE mailing 
>> listUSITTNE at mit.eduhttp://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/usittne
>>
>> 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>USITTNE mailing list
>USITTNE at mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/usittne
>
>_______________________________________________
>USITTNE mailing list
>USITTNE at mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/usittne