It’s a small detail, but nevertheless: we need to bear in mind that we adopted a proposal that every household can get a subsidy of 200 euro per person for sociocracy and NVC trainings. I would propose that this subsidy is only granted once we move to the payment of the 1500 euro, because otherwise the 500 euro can be reduced to 100 euro.
A very clear proposal, thx Alberto
Ok, I edited the above into a proposal (internal link), to be discussed in one of the next plenaries.
Could @reef-facilitation put it into the agenda of one of the next plenaries? It is not an urgent decision, so it can be used as an agenda-filler.
Hi @alberto , I checked the proposal. Looks good, but I have a question about the final provision. The members who already spent money on trainings will only be able to retrieve the 200 euros once they pay the full membership?
@reef-finance, I am having second thoughts on this. My worry is that 500 EUR is not really enough as a token of commitment. I would like to replace it with a system whereby new full members pay the full 2,000 EUR, but 1,500 of these are accounted for as a refundable loan by The Reef ASBL. if we don’t go through with the project, loans are returnable.
This does not account for the current full members, who already paid the full quota as membership, but maybe I can come up with something.
- Have a look at my second solution: does it make sense?
- Should Team Finance decide between the two solutions first, then bring only one proposal to the plenary? Or should we bring both solutions to the plenary? I lean towards a team decision for only one of the two solutions.
I like this idea! I would go for bringing only one solution (would make things easier and faster), but let’s see what others think.
Thanks, Alberto. I put a few minor comments and tracked changes in the Nextcloud document the other day. About this revised version: I’d agree with Ugne about Team Finance/Legal going to the plenary with one proposal only.
I feel we would need to clarify the use of some words : here we talk about a “full membership fee” while the convention (approved 15/9) refers to a “contribution to the operational fund” (the latest appearing more aligned with the statute, imho).
(If I got it right, this convention would now have to be changed (“2000” euros to “500”) at the very least)
@alberto I’m also in favour of coming forward with one proposal, but I think it would be good for the sake of documenting if you could explain the reason for dropping the other alternative in the section “reasoning behind the proposal”. Could that work?
It would have to be changed, indeed.
Thanks a lot @alberto. I provided some comments in the document.
The most important ones:
- I would leave out the part on the membership requests. This is another topic IMHO.
- I would like to see it specified that the loans are converted to donations once we start scouting, as we will need this money to be available to pay the architects for the feasibility studies.
On the fact that this system cannot be applied to the founding members, my view is that this is the price of sticking your neck out. We decided to go for it and so we knew that this entailed some risks. I am thus perfectly fine with it.
It is, but the question is sure to come up. I think it is important to emphasize, as part of the proposal, the need for speed.
I will make this change.
My concern is that this will lead to confusion. These are two different problems, so they require two different proposals. The one on conditional membership (pending green light from the confesseur) is already in this post: Becoming a Full Member?
@reef-finance: are you ok to bring this topic to the plenary on Monday?
Hi @Lee ! I personally would not be OK, since we haven’t yet had the opportunity to discuss/approve the proposal during a Team meeting (a meeting will be scheduled in the next days), while the initial proposal did not emerge from a Team discussion.
I understand that and I respect it, so not a reproach and no problem at all.
In the long run however I am worried that we won’t always have so much time to come forward with proposals, especially minor ones like this one. So what I propose is that I’ll bring this up with @reef-governance, and maybe we can also have a quick discussion at the Coordination Group meeting.