Jeremy's Proposal for an AIC President

[arclight]

I've been mulling over the generalities of having a president.

The two big sticking points for me are that the position is sort of a paper tiger (it's not clear they have any real power over others) and that by itself it won't solve a lot of the problems we're having.

On the other hand, an inspired person who can motivate others and has some amount of decision-making and budgetary authority makes sense because it's just inefficient dragging every decision through a general meeting and not being able to cut a check. So I think that having a president (someone with limited executive powers) can solve some problems.

I'm not opposed to having a president in principle; I just want to make sure we set realistic expectations for the position and not use it as an excuse to blame someone else for the other problems that we're not willing or able to solve ourselves. We need to leverage the strength of the group, but sometimes that's only possible with a strong and inspiring leader.

I can't see anyone doing this for free, (we're limited to paying them less than $400/mo which is $5/hr if they work half-time) unless we can come up with a creative (non-monetary) compensation.

I think this is an important step, but I agree with Erika that we need to sort out membership before we elect a president.

Any other comments I'd make would be repetitions of stuff I've already posted which I don't want to type out again.

[nadine]

and we should ween ourselves off of planning meetings and agendas based who can make it and who can't. this might be a contributing factor to our beaurocracy problems right now.

Then we need to decide on how people can vote when they can't attend meetings. Especially for big issues like who are members of AIC and whether we should change the organization structures.

I think our beaurocracy problems mainly come from not following through on ideas. Not from the lack of them or their discussion.

[valetoile]

So..... are there any people who want to be president? who we want to be president? It would be weird to make the position and then have have no one to step up to it. Not that we need to start making nominations before we know what we're going to do. But. something to consider.

[acrouch]

FYI, the meeting today didn't happen because there weren't enough people. It has been pushed back to next Sunday, I believe.

It sounds like the step to take at this point is to figure out a membership system. Working that out will give us some cash to play with and raise the stakes on involvement and personal responsibility. It should help us sort out our priorities for the AIC, which I don't think we completely understand yet, and only then can we get past these organizational hurdles we're facing. I don't think a President (or whatever we call it) will actually solve many of our problems.

[nadine]

FYI, the meeting today didn't happen because there weren't enough people. It has been pushed back to next Sunday, I believe.

What time next Sunday? There's also the Level 4 and 5 graduation show occuring next Sunday, not sure what time?

[xaq]

I'm sure you guys have already discussed and declined it, but I think $5/month dues would be a perfect way to decide membership AND bolster the treasury. I don't think it's exorbitant.

[kaci_beeler]

I'm sure you guys have already discussed and declined it, but I think $5/month dues would be a perfect way to decide membership AND bolster the treasury. I don't think it's exorbitant.

It was already discussed at an AIC meeting several months ago (Jan? Feb?). We turned it down firmly and decided instead to devote a % of all cagematch monies to the AIC.
Keeping track of everyone's dues every month would be a huge pain in the ass we don't need. And who wants to be the person hunting down everyone? A great amount of improvisers devote much of their time to the AIC, and time=money.
Is there even a great need right now to bolster the treasury?

[xaq]

Yes, Kaci. But primarily, due-paying would be a good way of tracking membership which is the problem at hand. Got another idea? Who gets to be members and who doesn't?

As far as dues go, I now think that a better idea would be for troupes to annually "buy" stagetime.
But that doesn't take care of membership really either...

Anyone else?

Oh, and, I didn't see you at the AIC meeting...since time=money, i think you owe a few bucks...j/k.

[kaci_beeler]

I don't believe in paying to perform theatre.
I do believe in paying for training, or paying for extra costs (props/costumes, etc).
But not: "Here's $5 bucks, let me get onstage!" (especially since there's no way of ever making any money back, unlike renting a space and hoping to earn money back from audiences and such).
There are other ways of earning such a priviledge. Just anyone with a group of people and some money shouldn't be automatically given time in the AIC. Quality control.

As far as helping the AIC and being supportive...
When Andy C says it's my duty as an AIC member to take part in summer workshops, I do. I'll show up for clean-up day and scrub the floors and walls. I've helped repaint and tape up the stage, steam-clean furniture. I'll tech for maestro, help host other's shows and take tickets. I'll do alot for the AIC. But I will not pay to perform.
I personally, make no money from the AIC. My troupe makes money, and all we do with our money is use it for advertising that brings people back to hideout. So the money cycles. I personally hate this idea of dues.
Just on principle. I am against dues.
I know money isn't everything and it isn't all about money (few people do improv for the money in it) but it's what the AIC represents to me and the way it is handled.

If in January 2007, we're at an extremely low point in monetary funds, maybe I'll change my opinion. But right now, in one of the most rocky seasons for shows of the year...I'd rather wait things out before jumping to conclusions and making big changes. Plus, something like dues shouldn't even be implemented halfway through the year.

Do we ask for financial contributions from benefactors like other theatre companies? Is that an option?

Who gets to be members and who doesn't?

http://portal.austinimprov.com/index.php?section=58.
There's the current list of members. Some of those people no longer are active, but it would be rude to take their names down...at least at this point.
How is tracking membership the problem at hand?

Oh, and, I didn't see you at the AIC meeting...

There was no real meeting...but I did show up. Roy and I made a sign upon discovering the cancellation, so that others who couldn't be there at 1 pm would know, instead of coming up to a dark green room and thinking that they were at the wrong location.

[Wesley]

It sounds like the step to take at this point is to figure out a membership system. Working that out will give us some cash to play with and raise the stakes on involvement and personal responsibility...I don't think a President (or whatever we call it) will actually solve many of our problems.

I disagree and here's why: Membership will probably make me more troupe focused and less AIC focused. I'm not opposed to a minimal something, but if I have to pay to participate, I'm going to be more hesitent to take on extra responsiblities like advertsising, clean-up days, making waffles, etc. It's like paying to work. Right now I feel good because I'm volunteering these things and trying to help build awareness of a community, but if I have to pay I think there will be a psychological break that says "focus on my shows and get my money's worth." I think an active overseer figure would go further toward keeping events on-track and organized than the hope that people will suddenly become more responsible and committed than they have been without oversight just because they gave money to the cause.

That said, I'm not opposed to dues per se and never have been.
I AM opposed to personal dues (unless one does not have a troupe, and then they should be small). I prefer troupe dues (and a sub-troupe of a troupe that wants regular performance time should also pay dues with the exception of Cage Match teams as that format is designed for ad hoc teams) and I prefer yearly dues to monthly. $50 a year or something. It is easier to track and seems less of a burden than paying 12 times a year. Though these dues won't make us flush with cash they are a token of commitment and will guarantee things like your troupe name on AIC troupe listings, etc. I wouldn't pay more than that, though, until the AIC had something offer in return (monetary help to travel to festivals, more visible advertsing, etc).


There's the current list of members. Some of those people no longer are active, but it would be rude to take their names down...at least at this point. How is tracking membership the problem at hand?
It is a problem (and will be moving forward) in some ways and we've had several of these discussions. Let's say the next AIC T-shirt lists memeber troupes on the back or we get a listing in ACOT's newspaper, is it fair to call everyone who performs a member troupe? What about a sub-troupe? Do they get a separate listing? What about a troupe that only performs and doesn't help in many other ways? Are they members? And as stage time becomes increasingly scarce with more and more troupes, how do we know who to give it to? Only putting "members" in the pool would make sense. And looking forward, if we do get grants and can subsidize travel to other festivals, for example, it would be nice to have a clearly defined membership for applying for funds. A paid due easily defines who is what without worrying too much about who did or didn't show up to what when, etc.
Besides, to me, rudeness is not an excuse not to remove someone. "It would be rude" is arbitrary and everyone's definition will vary. This is part of the problem at the very heart of the AIC. Like the whole "why didn't summer camp happen" or "why doesn't this task get done?" Sometimes the groups is so afraid of rules and structure and order that we lack to ability to move forward. I'm all for clarifying what it takes and means to be a "member" in the AIC and defining that role (and the responsibilities).

[smerlin]

It is my understanding that the House Manager position is being paid for from the Hideout's cut of show money, not from the AIC. I could be wrong though.

It is my understanding that the House Manager is being paid from the AIC and the Hideout's cut of the show money, half and half. Andy was appointed/volunteered himself to manage and hire the House Manager on behalf of the AIC and the Hideout. Part of Andy's dual roles.

Am I right, Andy?

[xaq]

Wes-I hope you can repost what you said in the thread Phil made regarding membership and troupe dues, as it seems you two have similar ideas.

I'm sure everyone works very hard. All I know is that before I left Austin, myself and everyone I knew considered it a privalege to be able to perform in a theatre downtown. Before that, we performed in cafeterias, "student centers" with terrible accoustics, and in public places. It was our dream come true every time we performed at the Hideout and we would volunteer to help other people solely because we might get the chance to perform at an excellent venue. But now, and no offense to anybody, it seems that everyone has grown used to this great gift they're receiving and some have even started to demand more from it.

The cost of renting a venue for a single performance is much higher than the proposition of minimal dues. Having actually paid out of pocket to find a performance space (though this wasn't in Austin, it was expensive as hell), I would consider it a godsend if all I had to do was pay 60 bucks a year to get to perform at least 24 shows, a mere pittance compared to what I paid for one weekend of shows. That's a ridiculously good deal. You could even make that money back with a little free word of mouth advertising.

If you want this bubble of free performance space to pop in a few years when the lease runs out, go ahead. If you want to pay minimal dues, so that the AIC can do things like advertise to UT kids and get bigger audiences so that both the AIC and the Hideout make money, I encourage it. Because you wouldn't have an opportunity like this in any other place than Austin, and it's not so much to ask for a couple of bucks each month or a small chunk each year plus a little bit of volunteer time to be able to keep performing in a venue that's as kickass as the Hideout.

[Wesley]

Wes-I hope you can repost what you said in the thread Phil made regarding membership and troupe dues, as it seems you two have similar ideas.

I'm going to reply to him when I have time. We actually have two very different ideas with essentially the same end product.