Austin Improv

Here is Jeremy's Proposal for an AIC President to be considered for a possible vote at the next General Meeting (this Sunday).

here she is. i think this is going to get voted on at this meeting so if you want to be heard and you are out of town, please speak here. i realize it's long, but i wanted to be specific.

"president" proposal July 27, 2006 – drafted by bearded lamb

i propose before this body of dudes and dudettes that the austin improv collective hire, assign, and designate a president (or other similar title that doesn't scare people) to oversee all of the collective's operations. this proposal does not have to be voted on as is. changes can be made before a vote occurs.

reasons to have a president:
- makes one person responsible for the general occurences of the collective. This makes one person the end of the line so that the accountability is no longer a circle. If something doesn't go right, they will be the fallguy and responsible for mending the situation
- it centralizes a lot of the decision making. rather than a lot of decisions being left up to committees that never meet or don't meet often enough to act fast, the president can act fast to capitalize on certain situations.
- technically speaking, if the collective elects someone the majority thinks will act as they would, things should be getting done according to the majority's needs and desires.
- a president eliminates some of the red tape that comes from having too many indian chiefs and not enough indians. in other words, we can't all be the leaders of the group. this is the cause of much of our current troubles.
- it's okay to have a hierarchy among the ranks. it doesn't mean one person has all the decision powers.
- a diffusion of responsibility occurs in the collective model. a group makes decisions based on different parameters than an individual. this is a psychological principle. people assume someone else will do whatever task the group has decided needs to be done. and when it isn't done, there is no one to reprimand for dropping the ball because everyone would have to point the fingers at themselves and everyone else.
- it is normal for a non-profit of our size to have a specific leader with over-arching powers. it is in fact an anomyly for a business of this size to not have a designated "president."
- I cannot think of any other successful artistic group that has no distinct leader. the closest is the Playground theatre in Chicago which is a co-op of sorts. But they elect a President and several officers, I think on an annual basis. the co-op part of it refers to the labor of maintaining and running the space. the shows are typically lightly attended and the theatre takes the entire door.
- behind every great group is a great leader.

examples from the artistic community:
- Bonnie Cullom for the Vortex Theatre
- Jason Neulander for Salvage Vanguard
- Ron Berry at The Blue Theatre
- Charna Halpern at Improv Olympic
- Zach Ward with Dirty South Improv
- Shannon Sedwick with Esther's Follies

duties:
- general overall supervision of the collective's activities.
- attends as many committee meetings as possible.
- participates as a committee member in the actions of any committee, as in, flyers whenever possible, helps clean the theatre as needed, helps schedule teachers and shows, etc.
- maintains open dialogue with committee chairs to make sure initiatives are followed through to their completion.
- maintains relationship with the various groups of the AIC and checks in periodically to get feed back from them on the operations.
- arranges and runs a monthly meeting with the committee chairs to check in and act as consultant. in this way, the president is the person who knows a little bit about everything, but specializes in nothing. the pres will see the accounting, the advertising, the education, the marketing, the show branding, the scheduling, and the maintenance of the space.
- develops and presents new initiatives and ideas to the collective at the general body meeting.
- develops a monthly report given to general bodiers about how things are going.
- evaluates the work done by committees and their chairs. reports to the general body about how things in each committee are going.
- evaluates the show producers (as in Roy and Kaci for Double Barrel) and reports to the general body about how the shows are going.
- oversees the duties and operations of the Hideout house manager as well as any interns the AIC hires.
- maintain bookkeeping for the shows.
- divides monies up for the groups.
- deposits monies into the bank.
- pays whatever bills the collective accrues, i.e. advertising, credit card, etc.
- coordinate with Hideout staff to make sure the theatre is cleaned and maintained on a regular basis.
- in general, to make sure someone else is doing what needs to be done in a timely manner or to do it themdamnselves if it isn't getting done.

specific powers:
- has access to the AIC bank account and AIC check book.
- has access to the Hideout Office.
- has the ability to recommend the removal of someone from the collective as proposed at a general body meeting, i.e. a show producer or delinquent troupe the pres. feels is lacking.
- has access to a petty cash account for collective emergencies.
- hires and fires any paid employees on behalf of the collective, right now the only one being the house manager.

pay:
president will be paid a stipend of $100 a week and will be expected to work 20+ hours, with the PLUS being emphasized.

checks and balances:
- reports to the general body meeting.
- can not spend over $50 without prior approval from four committee heads.
- can not make certain moves as stated elsewhere in this proposal without approval from the general body.

term limits:
- president will maintain the title for one year after which point the collective will decide if they should continue as the president.
- president can resign with one month's notice.
- president can be removed by the general body at any general meeting if a vote of 80% or more dictates such. quorum must be met for this to hold. quorum should be some percentage of acting committee heads and general AICers. (maybe from 50-80%)

probationary period (just for first president):
- the general body will create an evaluation for the president at 3 months and present it at the next upcoming general body meeting.
- the first president will serve for a probationary period of no less than 6 months after which the collective will decide if the person should continue as president or if the the job should be dissolved altogether.

This list may not be the total scope of duties and powers given to the president. If any question of this proposal's scope arises, hopefully better judgement by the pres. will prevail.
As I've said, it's not unusual for a group of our size and scope to have a president or likewise titled position. It centralizes the decision making, makes one person accountable, and should improve the general operations of the collective over time. Continuing to operate in our current state, means we will constantly be frustrated with the work ethic of others, and unable to feel satisfied that any initiative will be carried out properly.

Thank you for listening/reading.
Jeremy

Now for my opinion, I think this is a fantastic idea and I would have no problem voting for an AIC President, although I'm going to want to take some things into consideration.

This person needs to be calm and amiable, able to work with EVERY member of the community without any sort of bias that would interfere with relations (this issue does worry me because it seems every club [or collective] I've become a member of ends up having a president that most people hate, I don't want this to happen here).

This person needs to be severely committed to the collective. I dread the idea of someone becoming president and having to balance their own personal aspirations with the desires of the collective, and losing that battle either way.

This person needs to be intelligent, reasonable, and reliable (those are the reasons that it won't be me).

Any other opinions? Let's try and discuss this here while we can, to save some time during the meeting, maybe make up a nice list of points for or against this proposal to be presented at the meeting.

Thanks.
-Phil

president will be paid a stipend of $100 a week and will be expected to work 20+ hours, with the PLUS being emphasized.

This seems a little unrealistic. Who among us has the time to work 20+ hours for $5 an hour, on top of jobs and shows?

This seems a little unrealistic. Who among us has the time to work 20+ hours for $5 an hour, on top of jobs and shows?

I did =). I don't think it's too much to ask of someone who is honestly committed to the improv community (not a poser).

I think the idea of a President is a necessary one for the reasons listed by Jeremy (such as fallguy/motivator/SOMEONE being accountable). A few specifics:

Specific Powers- hires and fires any paid employees on behalf of the collective, right now the only one being the house manager.

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. Feel free to change ownership of the position if control is desired, but I think Andy did a good and careful interviewing process when he hired me as he will do for my replacement.

evaluates the show producers

This is so very important. There comes a point in the life cycle of a show that a decision must be made between the producers/performers having fun and no audience being there to see it. Someone's got to make that call because I doubt a producer would want to pull out of their own accord. And someone's got to be there to put the pressure on so that publicity gets out and seats get filled. It's theatre...interactive theatre. To me, the most important part is the audience. Otherwise, it's just practice.

- it is normal for a non-profit of our size to have a specific leader with over-arching powers. it is in fact an anomyly for a business of this size to not have a designated "president."

Agreed. I think that this may be why business hasn't been focused on as much as it should be. There needs to be someone who can look into the future and see potential problems and act now to solve them. Such as the existence of the Hideout into the next decade...will it happen? Will we only start preparing once it's too late to make a mark? See me at the gen. meeting for more discussion.

I (being, of course, a new guy with little real understanding of how the AIC has operated in the past) think this is a good idea. I've also been a parliamentarian (off and on) for the last ten years or so, so I understand and fully support any group's efforts to work its way toward cohesive leadership.

However, I would make the following suggestion:

___________________________________________________________

In order to maintain a checks-and-balances sort of arrangement, I would propose that there be 2 (two) people in this position. Their titles would be Managing Director and Artistic Director.

Duties/Responsibilities of the Managing Director --

- General oversight of AIC funding and bank account transactions
- Oversight of fundraising and promotional activities for the AIC
- Charged with general development of an audience for the AIC's productions (in addition to any such work being performed by the individual troupes)
- Serves as liaison to the ownership and staff of the Hideout and other sych venues in the areas of facility rental, etc.
- As per Jeremy's proposal, cannot make major decisions (expenditures over $50, etc.) without approval of either committee heads or the general membership.
- Works with the Artistic Director to ensure that the AIC consistently produces quality shows (this is a standard clause one might find -- I haven't seen enough of a variety of AIC shows to make criticism)
- Works with the Artistic Director on scheduling, review of producers/troupes, etc
- In charge of ensuring that shows have adequate front-of-house staff (Box Office, ushers, etc.)

Duties/Responsibilities of the Artistic Director--

- Oversight of artistic concerns within the AIC (balancing long-form, short-form, sketch, etc.) NOTE: The Artistic Director may RECOMMEND that a troupe be permitted or denied a performance slot, but may not make that decision in an executive capacity. I think this would best be left to committees or to the general membership.
- Serves as a liaison to the ownership and staff of The Hideout and other venues for all issues concerning artistic and technical matters (keeping the spaces clean, etc.) NOTE: There may be some overlap with the Managing Director on this point. Anyone have any suggestions for clarifying these two roles?
- In charge of ensuring adequate backstage and technical staff for shows.
- Views performances and gives CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK to troupes.
- Works with the Managing Director to ensure that the AIC consistently produces quality shows.(this is a standard clause one might find -- I haven't seen enough of a variety of AIC shows to make criticism)
- Works with the Managing Director on scheduling, review of producers/troupes, etc.
- Cannot make MAJOR decisions without the approval or either committee heads or the general membership

Both positions would answer to the general assembly, and would be required to attend all general meetings (except under extenuating circumstances, in which case they should designate a proxy at least 24 hours in advance)

Both positions would be charged with meeting with each other on a weekly basis, if not more frequently.

Both positions would be on one-year terms, and each would be responsible for evaluating the work of the other on a regular (say, monthly) basis...the means of evaluation I'm leaving open, and in fact it need not be included...but I think it would be a good idea.

Both positions could be paid, but it should be an honorarium rather than a stipend. I for one, don't want either job, but if I did I would probably be willing to do it for free if I knew it was split responsibilities rather than one person being lumped with all the work. So basically, the money is just incentive to take the job plus recognition of extra time taken up by the job RATHER THAN a fee for services performed. I don't know what AIC's finances are like, but I think this way leaves a bit of wiggle-room should hard times fall upon the collective.

Ideally:

The Managing Director should be someone with a good head on their shoulders; lots of improv, theatre, or other performing arts experience; and a demonstrated background in management, or business would be preferred

The Artistic Director should be someone with extensive experience in improv, theatre, or other performing arts; a fair amount of technical theatre experience; and a demonstrated history of artistic leadership

Both candidates should be long-time members of the AIC, in good standing, and willing to devote the time and energy necessary for the job; it also goes without saying that it should be two people who can work well together.

_______________________________________________________

***Disclaimer

Again, I have no real understanding of how the AIC has operated in the past. What I present here is basically a rough dual-executive model that, I think, is more in line with the concept of a collective than the above-proposed single-executive model.There is still an end-of-the-line person for just about any matter which might come up, but with the added benefit of not putting all of the proverbial eggs into one basket.

I welcome any comments, criticisms, clarifications, or other commentary upon the semi-proposal above. Also, if anyone wants to develop the above ideas further and make a formal proposal out of it, be my guest -- this is just food for thought...

i think splitting the job is a good idea. this is common with organizations of our size as well and it creates wiggle room, which is nice.

sean, if you're coming to the meeting, could you print this and refine if you'd like. It might be helpful to present it as another option at the meeting?

yeah, one of the biggest problems with this proposal is the question of is there someone who is willing and capable of performing these duties for so little pay. i know the collective can't afford much but the hope is that a president will improve many things about the collective including the income and ability to pay people what they should be paid for working so hard.

not everyone who works for non-profits gets paid. but the administration always does. and sure, it's not enough to build a mansion, but who among us wants to mow that much of a yard anyway?

Also, perhaps (and this would ultimately be up to Bob A) the Managing and Artistic Directors could be charged with moderation of certain sections of these forums...

Just a thought.

i have lots of thoughts on this - some points of agreement and differences that i'd prefer to speak to in tomorrow's meeting.

howevs - please note that the AIC does NOT make a lot of money.

AIC's average monthly income since Dec 2005 is 336/mo.

if there were to be any compensation paid (and, personally i would be a little frustrated by having some people compensated for their time and others not - i know from experience that dave and andrea spend a great deal of their personal time coordinating schedules monthly), it should be tied to the box office,

as a % of AIC's box office take.

a process question related to this issue:

a) do we have at least 45 minutes set aside to discuss this?
b) what is the expected outcome of our discussion on sunday? are we simply discussing the president post and voting on it in the next meeting (with nominations, etc.)?
c) have we concluded that we will go down the path of a singular head vs. committee heads? i think we did, but am not sure.
d) who gets to vote on the president? there is a whole slew of membership/voting issues that need to be decided before we vote (in my mind).

i dont want this to be overly bureacratic, but we really have to solve the membership/voting thing before anyone is voted in.

e

beardedlamb wrote:i think splitting the job is a good idea. this is common with organizations of our size as well and it creates wiggle room, which is nice.

sean, if you're coming to the meeting, could you print this and refine if you'd like. It might be helpful to present it as another option at the meeting?

yeah, one of the biggest problems with this proposal is the question of is there someone who is willing and capable of performing these duties for so little pay. i know the collective can't afford much but the hope is that a president will improve many things about the collective including the income and ability to pay people what they should be paid for working so hard.

not everyone who works for non-profits gets paid. but the administration always does. and sure, it's not enough to build a mansion, but who among us wants to mow that much of a yard anyway?

I dunno if I can make the meeting tomorrow (I need to consult with my personal scheduling gnome), but if I can I will definitely bring this as an alternative (or at the very least, a jumping-off point for further discussion on the topic)

The artistic director position is very powerful. They direct the vision of the group, and the direction which improv will go. I think the artistic director position kills more of the "Collective" portion of the AIC then a President does.

I don't think we need a President or an Artistic Director. We need a Program Manager at this point. Someone who monitors action items, looks at schedules and make sure things get done.

I think what scares me is the Power that we gave to the individual who is a President or an Artistic Director. It's all fine and all when the person is someone we like, or likes our troupe, but what if it's someone who only favors their friends or groups? This will also make the AIC be far far more political. We have a Baron in our SCA, and when the Baron and Baroness were great, the group was great. But when the Baron was so-so.. lots of people stopped being inspired.

Program Manager sounds less threatening, and it seems to fill in the gaps that Jeremy and others have been pointing out in terms of "Who owns this? Who does that?" As oppose to "Who decides what the vision of AIC is this year?" or "Who gets to choose what gets funded?" That's why we're a Collective.

My proposal: Let voting on whether or not we get a president/artistic director be taken over several meetings or by email, since many people are out of town this weekend.

Nadine.

I see these as positions of LEADERSHIP rather than of POWER.

That's why I made a point, in my comments above, to suggest that the Managing and Artistic Directors can only make minor decisions on a given area without referring to the General Assembly or to the Committee Heads.

Basically, as I see it, these two people wolud serve the collective rather than run it. They would handle the small, day-to-day things and serve as a point of contact for people within the collective.

Think of it in terms of municipal government. In a Council-Manager style of municipal governance, the City Manager does the dirty work, but takes direction from the Council, and ultimately answers to them. You have one "go-to" person (who can delegate responsibilities when necessary) who is charged with overseeing general operations, but he can't do anything more than follow existing procedure without the consent of the council.

This is the direction I was going in with my ideas. The power of the Collective remains in place, but there is a single person (or, in this case, two persons) who execute the policies and other business of the Collective.

Thinking of it in these terms (and enacting it likewise) would, I think, head off the concerns that any one person might get too much power and/or discretionary ability and therefore do things harmful to the Collective as a whole.

nadine wrote:My proposal: Let voting on whether or not we get a president/artistic director be taken over several meetings or by email, since many people are out of town this weekend.

something has to be done soon. i'm not saying we should walk out of tomorrow's meeting with an elected president, but we need to make progress in the direction of solving our biggest problems. the discussion tomorrow should be if we think a president will help that.

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.

b

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.

Once again I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who suggests that these problems can be cleared up by delegating to committees is only playing into the red tape of bureaucracy. Having once a month meetings means that any committee decisions take over 2 months to make. That, it seems, is more of a hinderance to AIC's power to make decisions and act on them.

I do not wish to be negatively critical when I say this, but I haven't seen any changes or policies made by the AIC since I've been in town. Either they're all behind-the-scenes, too slowly enacted, or (most likely) left unaddressed. Maybe I'm just blind. Did I miss the club picnic?

i'm not advocating for a committee head thing necessarily - i just wanted to know what was involved in this conversation tomorrow.

if its a vote, we need to determine the membership thing (who votes) as a procedural thing before taking a vote. if i am alone on that, cool - i just want to bring that forward.

werd.
e

i changed the agenda so that we discuss membership before we discuss the president issue. i also expanded it so we have 45 minutes for president discussion.