|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 8, 2011 12:54:22 GMT -9
I am opening this thread on the open forum to solicit input from inside and outside Alaska for developing the protocol for establishing GeocacheAlaska chapters.
The following is the reference excerpt from the by-laws providing the framework from which we will begin:
Article X: CHAPTERS & MEETINGS
A Chapter shall be defined as a group of GeAK! members that meet on a regular basis (at least quarterly). An active chapter shall have a minimum of 10 Premium Members in good standing. The group must apply to the board of directors for recognition as an active chapter. The Board of Directors will consider the chapter’s application to
determine if it fits within the purposes and goals of GeAK!
Chapter Meetings will be held as often as designated by the Chapter, usually monthly. The purpose of the Chapter Meetings shall be to discuss current initiatives, solicit involvement and provide a forum for the exchange of information among members. Agenda items may include slide shows or video tapes of geocaching areas and
activities, or educational presentations.[/i]
The protocol will be developed by the Members at Large and presented to the board for approval.
The comment and suggestion period will remain open until April 15, 2011.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Feb 8, 2011 17:29:09 GMT -9
And I will start by posing the questions I brought up last year about the way the Chapter article is written in the By-Laws... plus a few new ones.
1- Why 10 members? What is the significance of that number. Based on the current membership roster, the only geographic area that can currently support a Chapter is Anchorage.
2- Why do the ten members have to be Premium? Is it possible to count Associate memberships toward a Chapter's roster and still acheive the desired Chapter goals?
3- The make-up of the directing body of a Chapter is not addressed. However, depending on what a Chapter is going to do, the most basic directing Board could consist of a President, Vice-President, and Secretary/Treasurer.
4- We've often talked about Chapters being geographical divisions, yet there is nothing in the By-Laws limiting it to a geographic region. For example, it would be perfectly acceptable for a group of 10 Premium members to form a "Puzzle Cache Chapter" with members from all geographic areas, with that Chapter being dedicated all things related to Puzzle caches.
5- What happens to a formed Chapter if the membership falls below 10? According to the GeAK By-Laws, that Chapter can no longer exist.
These are not really pokes at the Chapter creation issues, but are items that need to be addressed and either verified or changed/clarified where needed. Would love to have some in-depth discussion of these and other ideas/issues/concerns.
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 8, 2011 19:10:06 GMT -9
Thanks for recording them here for open discussion. I certainly can't argue with your points and do not have immediate answers to your queries. One of my other questions is their representation/voice on the board.
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 9, 2011 6:07:13 GMT -9
If we assume for the moment that a chapter is a geographical sub-org, then there is another interesting twist. When/If the the Board make-up goes to a fully statewide status (and we are very close to that this year), then doesn't Anchorage also need a chapter formed to cover its region? Afterall, we specifically posit that the Board and GeocacheAlaska are NOT Anchorage-centric.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Feb 9, 2011 7:13:57 GMT -9
Good point.
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 9, 2011 11:15:38 GMT -9
I thought it added an element of inclination to the pot!
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 9, 2011 11:23:47 GMT -9
Oh, oh, oh! Let me talk that thought a little further down the road (still sticking to the geographical context). At some point it would seem conceivable that the GeocacheAlaska! Board would consist of the executive positions plus representation of the regional chapters. A decision would need to be made concerning the level of representation to based on regional equality or a membership distribution (rather than the theoretical bicameral structure).
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Feb 9, 2011 11:59:20 GMT -9
Great talking points, for the most part*.
An over-arching consideration is that the purpose of a chapter is to build GeocacheAlaska! membership while meeting individual needs in a specific area (of geography or interest). I'd not considered an interest-based chapter (such as GeocacheAlaska! Benchmarkers), but that's a valid talking point.
The more traditional geographically-focused regional approach allows for onsite contact with local land managers, and local outlets for geocaching education (a primary reason that GeocacheAlaska! was formed).
I'm open to reducing size to 5 members, and discussing premium vs associate member levels. Thoughtful conversation has to occur regarding how chapters get a voting rep to the statewide board level, and how we'd structure chapter 'government'. Certainly, having a local chapter should foster growth in premium membership.
*My only beef thus far is with the mention of introducing camels into the structure, theoretically or otherwise. We already have bugs and goats and other furry little critters wandering in and out of meetings; I'm not sure I'm ready for camels of any persuasion just yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 9, 2011 13:54:46 GMT -9
I can't believe that the rabbits only got a generic reference! (And that being your only "beef" almost made me spew!)
I all seriousness, I don't think I can find any redeeming feature for doing chapters on anything BUT a geographic basis. (Caucuses can form at will outside of chapters!)
How about one board seat per chapter up to 50 chapter members and another board seat for >50 chapter members.
Out-of-state memberships would not be associated with a chapter.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernrobin on Feb 9, 2011 15:02:10 GMT -9
On Feb 20th I have a flash mob with a meeting to follow in a room provided by Sportsmens Warehouse Wasilla to gather and talk about the formation of the Mat-Su Cachers part of GeocacheAlaska!. Hope to see all valley cachers there.
|
|
|
|
Post by caprahircus on Feb 9, 2011 16:10:35 GMT -9
The talk will have to be general in nature until we figure out HOW to form one. But encourage the attendees to put their ideas in writing here on this thread (AFTER you have twisted their arms until they sign up for Premium memberships!). This will form the basis of our recommendations to the Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by AKFossil on Feb 9, 2011 17:46:31 GMT -9
I am open to revisiting the requirements of chapters, and if necessary admending the by-laws but the biggest concern was ensuring members had a stake in the game sort of speak to ensure the sucess of the chapters.
|
|
|
|
Post by northernrobin on Feb 13, 2011 10:28:04 GMT -9
The talk will have to be general in nature until we figure out HOW to form one. But encourage the attendees to put their ideas in writing here on this thread (AFTER you have twisted their arms until they sign up for Premium memberships!). This will form the basis of our recommendations to the Board. That's exactly what I planned to do. |
|
|
|
Post by firemanak on Dec 18, 2012 22:53:32 GMT -9
Is this post still active?
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Dec 19, 2012 8:50:40 GMT -9
It's an open thread, Tony. Glad you've chimed in here, as Scott A down Soldotna way would like to see this get more attention in 2013 (especially as we now have board mbrs from Fairbanks, Wasilla, Anchorage, and Soldotna - the whole Railbelt is represented this year). Good time to return to the conversation... and I'll be looking forward to Scott's input very soon!
In summary - we're looking at several items regarding how the bylaws are written for chapter formation... and need revision. Here's some of the talking points & ideas to date:
1) Why ten members? Can it be less?
(Yes - 5 is being kicked around)
2) What is the definition of 'member' - Sourdough or Associate?
(Should be voting members of GeocacheAlaska! - meaning Sourdough)
3) How will chapters be represented at Board Level?
(thus far - one board mbr per chapter up to 50 mbrs; +1 for every 50 past)
4) What will chapter reps at board level be called?
(so far - no ideas - mbrs at large?)
5) How are chapters defined for membership? (i.e. - geographic vs interests)
(Geographic, as the main organization exists for geographic land mgr / cacher interactions)
6) If we form chapters anywhere outside of Anchorage, does this mean Anchorage should become a chapter too?
(Yes - because GeocacheAlaska! is to represent the entire state; chapters are local entities under the organization as a whole, thus Anchorage becomes a region for a Chapter)
7) If a person joins as Sourdough and they're not in any existing chapter region, how do they get represented?
(This needs to be addressed; I expect there will be at least one member at large dedicated to statewide representation issues)
Let's continue the discussion in this thread...
|
|
|
|
Post by fuzzybelly on Dec 19, 2012 9:42:05 GMT -9
Very interesting conversation.
I'll keep watching this thread.
I don't know enough about this yet to offer an opinion
Thanks for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 19, 2012 19:18:49 GMT -9
I actually didn't realize that this topic was still on the table after our last round of BOD discussions on it. Of course, at the last round we were running with about 75 Sourdough members and we are now up to over 135. So, perhaps we've picked up enough members to support some regional activity. I will post a regional membership breakdown when I get a chance to run the appropriate filters on the roster.
That said, my gut says we don't have enough membership involvement in the current "state wide" organizational structure to warrant a division into multiple regional groupings while maintaining that overall state-wide structure. One need only look at the number of folks who tossed their hat into the ring during the last election and the lack of committee involvement by the non-BOD membership.
Let's also not forget that we opened the Sourdough ranks up to the planet this year. So we now have a number of members who are not Alaskans. This, coupled with the SD nametag distribution caused a dramatic jump in new members. I have some serious concerns about SD member retention for those who now have their nametag in hand but are not otherwise involved with the organization. I believe that 2013 needs critical focus on membership involvement and retention.
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 19, 2012 19:56:31 GMT -9
Just for a fun comparison, here is Alaska's current cache distribution map. Trying to divide this into sensible regions of cachers would be nearly as complicated as defining Congressional voting districts. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 19, 2012 19:57:31 GMT -9
And at the same scale, here is the continental US cache distribution. Makes Alaska look like a cache free zone.  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 19, 2012 19:58:33 GMT -9
Again at the same scale, here is Europe. I never really wanted to visit Europe... until I saw the cache map. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 20, 2012 10:18:55 GMT -9
There are 124 Alaskan Sourdough members with another 22 living out of state (or out of country)
{There are an additional 96 Cheechako members out there as well}
Of those Sourdough members, 81 are residents of Anchorage, Eagle River, and Chugiak
The Kenai Peninsula has 14 SD members spread over Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, and Seward
There are 13 SD members in The Valley (Palmer, Wasilla, Big Lake, Talkeetna, Willow)
{I am actually amazed that the KP has more SD members than the Valley right now!}
The Interior region has 12 SD members in Fairbanks, North Pole, and Wainwright
Cordova has 2 and Valdez has 1 for the PWS area
And the SouthEast panhandle has only 1 SD member, who is in Juneau
Given these figures, there is just barely enough people in the Valley, on the Kenai, and in the Interior to each form a Chapter, but only if each area can get the involvement of most of their members. That's a tall order when you consider that less than 10 of the 81 Anchorage members are involved with the BOD and committees.
Just some things to consider during this discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemanak on Dec 20, 2012 12:23:58 GMT -9
I didn't think we did either but figured I would ask to see, I don't have the "people" power to do it.
But wanted to know more about it.
IT might be away to go in the future
|
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Dec 20, 2012 14:14:20 GMT -9
See, Tony? Told ya I was waiting to see what Scott's input would be!
That's because he's a consummate numbers guy, and has talked through all this before...
Thanks for the analysis, Scott. Pretty much sums up the discussion here.
|
|
|
|
Post by firemanak on Dec 20, 2012 21:57:09 GMT -9
Wow...."so what is that in Reindeer power" my favorite dodge commercial...lol
|
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 21, 2012 0:55:48 GMT -9
|
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 21, 2012 11:20:52 GMT -9
I didn't think we did either but figured I would ask to see, I don't have the "people" power to do it. But wanted to know more about it. IT might be away to go in the future Ultimately, IF GeocacheAlaska! continues to grow, I see chapters being a way to manage the growth as local areas reach critical mass. Scott stated points I've made in the past that "active" members are in short supply. It's a challenge to seat the existing Board of Directors of nine people drawing from statewide resources. I can't imagine trying to seat the Board of Directors PLUS chapter officers. Then, add to that, the need for committee work and the volunteer pool just isn't very deep. That said, regional bling such as the Interior Pathtag Tony posted, underwriting events around the State, and doing other things to emphasize local caching communities are definitely important to do. |
|
|
|
Post by firemanak on Dec 21, 2012 17:21:51 GMT -9
Watch out for Fairbanks! When I get done with this town LOL We will have to have a chapter ! lol I beat my head daily, trying to figure out how to reach out to those who don't know about us getting together.....Suggestions?
|
|
burtonsinak
Bronze Cacher
Posts: 60
GeocacheAlaska! Membership Level: Sourdough
|
Post by burtonsinak on Dec 21, 2012 19:33:12 GMT -9
Is there a way we can use Meetups.com? have it link to geocachealaska or something like that to maybe get some of those out doors people interested. Just an idea. There has been a thing or 2 on TV and newspaper about geocaching if i remember right. Do we have things on UTUBe for geocaching in AK as i know there is lots on/with other places. I dont know much about face book but i know the Hawii cachers us that to communicate instead of the forum and they seem to have more involved with it. I know more then one idea/thought and they probably been said before.
|
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Dec 21, 2012 20:15:53 GMT -9
Is there a way we can use Meetups.com? We need to be cautious about linking with certain groups because significant portions of their memberships are militant "leave no trace" advocates who consider a cache container in the back country an abomination and will pick up any cache they find as litter. |
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Dec 21, 2012 21:37:12 GMT -9
People still talk about the facebookies and the twits and such, but we've tried the social media with no positive results. We have a page on Facebook and made a valiant effort to promote it. Very few showed up and the FB format leaves a lot of be desired in the way they handle group pages. This forum is the single most logical place for people to "meet up", and yet we get less than 10 people logging in each day. When you subtract out the BOD, that is an average of about 2 cachers even looking at this forum daily. There have been numerous attempts by several to make other forums and social media pages elsewhere. The problem is, when you have only a couple people and you try to divide them up amongst several different media, you end up losing them in the clutter. I wholeheartedly believe that we need to have a singular point of contact and the most logical place is right here in this forum. I've had several folks complain that they find the forum too complicated to look at. I'd love nothing more than to trim it down to a much more concise place (It kinda looks like an engineer had something to do with the original build sorry, Mike), however my requests to the masses for ideas or suggestions have consistently fallen silent. There's a whole board dedicated to website and forum requests. It is largely vacant. We could have a higher quality forum package, but that would cost money. So we have a free forum with its notable limitations. Few show up, but there is a seemingly non-stop buzz about how we should try using this site or that site or such-n-such online group or board or whatever. That does nothing but divide our reach and subdivide our members when I feel we should be focusing our message to bring people together in one place. So, unless these other places can be used simply to funnel folks back here, then I find no real value in trying to setup more places and pages out there in cyberspace. /rant |
|
