Posted: 1 month ago

On meeting for the week of February 1, 2010 is on the upcoming COL. At the end of the meeting, you're asked to "vote" on several issues. You can "vote" here, and add any discussion you would like.

The issue numbers are below, and you can reply to this post noting the issue and your vote (and comments).

10-17

10-31

10-45

10-46

10-58

10-87

10-121

10-183

You can print out  just the excerpts of these COL items at http://www.recswusa.org/documents/How I Would Vote.pdf

Larry Levenson
President 2009-2010
Prescott, Arizona USA
===================

Posted: 1 month ago

Here is my votes: 10-17 yes; 10-31; yes; 10-45 and 10-46: comment: I see no advantage to having these two new categories of membership (except revenue, and that can be gotten by increasing membership of individuals). Rotary has been an organization of individuals banding together to give service. If membership for individuals is a problem, it will not be solved by increasing the categories of membership. We are an organization that has grown through the years by individual showing others that service is good for business and our business is goodwill, fellowship and peace. If we have problems in getting new, young individuals to join our cause then we need to address that, not add to the categories to mask the problem. Corporate and associate membership are not solutions, but Bandaids: 10-58; yes: 10-87: yes; 10:121: yes; and 10-183: yes.

When Rotary changed Fred Sheldon's mantra of 1905: "He Profits Most Who Serves Best", in 2004 to "They Profit Most Who Serve Best", I think that Rotarian meant "inclusion of women" not corporations and half-members (which 10-45 and 10-46 seems to include). We are still an organization of individuals who join together to help other individuals and causes. If Rotary is really hurting for revenue, then we need a resolution that addresses that problem (and maybe in this changing world that could mean "corporate and association" membership but why try to go around this problem by proposing a solution without addressing the 'real problem').

Posted: 1 month ago

Nice to see yet another person's view on these particular items.  When we see all of the proposal regarding corporate or associate member categories, they are all proposed (I assume) with an intention of making it easier to grow our numbers. The ripple effects of the concepts are then something we need to weigh. When we add corporate are we possible getting 3 or people instead of one? or are we just getting place holder people whose hearts are not in service?

I appreciate your perspective and hope other will vote and post.

Lucinda General

Posted: 1 month ago

I would vote against this item: the principle of attendance is fundamental to Rotary. As a person who is always living just in time life, I am all too aware of how procrastination can creep up on you.

I am not able to form a firm opinion about bi-weekly meetings — at least not one that I am willing to enforce on other clubs. I would need to do additional research and discuss this with a variety of Rotarians and prospects before I could make a reasoned vote.

Again, more research. I am inclined to oppose this enactment: I don't see how it will benefit Rotary's service goals, and it seems to serve only to put a Rotary "stamp of approval" on a resume (whether personal or corporate. Can a corporate member be elected president and do we then get a sister/brotherhood of the traveling gavel? (Apologies to all, that's one of the logical fallacies, but it amused me.)

This proposal seems like a reasonable approach to bringing younger members into Rotary - and seems to have thought out the ramifications carefully. I would be interested to know how many members fall by the wayside in the first years of membership: in my single terra club, the number seems to be significant. Whether this will truly increase the number of active, contributing members, I don't know, but I think it has a chance of allowing prospective members to make an informed decision.

I woud vote against setting up arbitration committees for two reasons (maybe three). First, there do seem to be disparate groups at the district level and one assumes that over time arbitration committees might swing to different politcal camps (even with the staggered terms approach). Second, I'm not certain that there is enough actual litigation between Rotarians, Clubs, and Districts, to warrant a ton of new committees (and would such a structure result in more escalation of disputes?) And first and a half (my potential third), will it really promote good will and better friendships: amicable resolution is a good goal but without the wisdom of Solomon, someone always feels like a loser (sometimes both parties), which could be exacerbated by the perceived loyalties of the committee compostition. (Unless the committee was far removed from the persons involved, which I believe would be too time and/or cost consuming for a relatively small number of disputes.)

Do we still have Avenues of Service? I thought that all got rearranged two or three COLs ago. Guess I'd have to bone up on it.

Hmmm - is this micromanaging or local solutions? In a purely humanitarian sense, it doesn't make sense to give only where you have received. This would appear to be an attempt to stop the use of a Rotary Club exclusively as a means of getting grant money. Do we have this problem? And is a resolution "to consider requesting TRF" actually accomplishing anything that the good sense of this body would not accomplish in its ordinary business (or has not?)

So many facets - so little time. On the one hand, the publishing costs are enormous, and we all know how many copies of The Rotarian do not get read. But actual readership would go down drastically with a virtual magazine: the tags on the front of the physical magazine as it lays around the house often cause me to pick it up.

Lucinda — this is an enormous task and I salute you for tackling it.

Karen -

Posted: 1 month ago

Without taking time for further research and reflection; these are my initial reactions:

10-17 I'm inclined No.  Having been a club secretary for many years the monthly reporting is not that big an issue and RI should have timely information.  Perhaps a quarterly report would be reasonable.

10-31 I'm inclined No, but open to some flexibility in meeting schedules.

10-45 Yes.

10-46 My inclination is No.  If one isn't sure they want to be a member and commit to Rotary, probably they shouldn't join.

10-58 Yes.  Probably a reasonable way to encourage resolution of issues.

10-87 Yes. I think this has effectively been an Avenue of Svc.for some time, at least with most USA clubs I know.

10-21 Yes.

10-183 Yes. A more sustainable approach to use of resources.

And of course Yes to making eClubs a permanent part of Rotary!

Posted: 1 month ago

10-17 No. Attendance is the key, if we were not required to follow up monthly; it would be easy to let members slip through the cracks.

10-31 No is my inclination. The less meetings, the less involvement.

10-45 No. Most corporations that are involved in the communities encourage their employees to join organizations.

10-46 No. Commitments need to be made by a person to be a Rotarian.

10-58 No. Hopefully we do not need this.

10-87 Yes.

10-121 No. Money issues, if I can't give money, maybe I can give something else. I would tend to base this on the Service of a club.

10-183 Yes. A voluntary subscription, still members paying the subscription fee. We get two Rotarians, and I have tried for years to get them to drop one. A big waste.

Carol Anderson

Posted: 1 month ago

First, kudos to Larry for setting this up - what a fascinating meeting!

On to the votes:

10-17: It seems that having data more regularly rather than less is better, though Steven's suggestion of quarterly seems often enough.

10-31: Making twice-a-month meetings a possibility makes sense to me, though I prefer a club in which there is weekly contact.  This could be helpful to folks in areas where the members live over a large area.

10-45: I'd say yes, knowing that the number is limited.  It could help individual clubs better influence companies to work according to the Four Way Test.

10-46: Hmmm on this one.  I'd lean in favor, as I'm taking advantage of something similar to be a member of a local Kiwanis club, actually, and am glad to have a system by which I get to know and serve with that group.

10-58: Do we really need such a thing?  Are there lawsuits happening between Rotarians frequently?  Doesn't sound very Four-Way Test-like to me.

10-87: I'd say yes.  The more we focus on children, the easier it is to rally our members to specific causes.

10-121: It would be nice if there were something in the middle, perhaps limiting annual funds to clubs that aren't contributing.  Matching grants are about Rotary as a whole, as I see it, and not as much about individual clubs.  That said, providing encouragement to be part of the larger team funding the RF makes sense.

10-183: An enthusiastic yes.  The numbers seem to suggest that the organization would come out ahead, and we'd be saving a lot of paper.  No doubt a good chunk of those magazines end up with the catalogs, after all.  I like the thought of being able to search among a set of files for particular artices instead of thumbing through whatever I happen to have set aside.

Posted: 2 weeks ago

I vote YES on:

10-17

10-31

10-183

I vote NO on all others