Austin Improv

Unlike these other. threads. this is a firm declaration that the May 20th meeting is indeed still on.

Sunday, May 20, 1pm to 3pm

Topics on the agenda:
- Vote for me to take over the secretary position.
- Vote for Asaf to continue in his position as managing director.
- Marketing update and various ad ideas.
- Vote for Asaf to be empowered to make the same marketing decisions that we had previously voted on letting Wes make.
- Decide future meeting dates.
- Scheduling status updates
- The Double Barrel status updates.
- Discussion of financial issues.
- Other general updates & discussion of other AIC projects.


Let me know if you have anything to add to this or make more specific. Voting items need to be on the agenda by the end of the day, but general discussion stuff I can update over the next few days.

I will update the agenda list in this post as any changes are made.

I'll give status updates on The Double Barrel and scheduling.

also, there are some financial issues to talk about, as well as advertising updates.

For the future--for those of us who cannot be there and would like to leave proxy votes--agendas should not be simple lists of discussion topics, but need to include specifics as to what will be voted on so that we can do so. That was why the whole 'posting the agenda a week in advance or the issue couldn't be voted on' proposal was raised and passed, because people would discuss a topic and then come up with a decision to vote on in the meeting and vote on it without the input from anyone not there.

If there is any voting going on under "Marketing update and various ad ideas" or "General updates & discussion of other AIC projects" then I cannot leave any proxy votes on those issues.

Do we have specifics for all votes this weekend?

The problem is that it is hard to know what needs to be decided on until we have enough of a representation of the AIC all together in one room. The discussions on the forums leading up to a vote sometimes tend to be counterproductive because they cannot be led anywhere near as efficiently online. So it may be that we come up with things that should be voted on in the course of the meeting.

If that happens, trust that either a) the people in the room will have the sense to know that it is something that should be shared with the AIC as a whole, or trust that b) it is minor enough a vote that you can trust the representation in the room to make the right decision.

Any decisions made will be announced immediately. If there are any problems with the vote, they can be stated then, and I guarantee those grievances will be taken seriously.

It isn't a matter of guarantees or trust. It is a matter of the community deciding long ago to follow a set of rules and procedures and then tossing them out the window whenever they become inconvenient.

We want 503 status, we want to interact with other artistic communities, we want grants, etc., but to do these things we have to decide if we are or aren't a community with structure, organization, rules, regulations, and procedures. And the fact is that we have decided a LOT of these procedural issues already in the past. In fact, we decided them precisely because people were coming up with things to vote on in the meeting and a lot of people were left out, even of good decisions. It isn't a matter of making good decisions adn trusting people there to make good decisions, it is a matter of consistency in function and procedure and everyone being pre-informed and engaged. AND so that people who cared about the community but could not be there could leave informed proxy votes.

Floating meeting dates, non-specific agendas, voting on issues without the pre-decided one week pre-posting, etc, are risking this stabilty and predictability in how our community functions.

If there is a problem knowing what to vote on, then it falls on the committee heads. If there are no committee heads, then the agenda should probably read to vote on committee heads (who should have already been nominated in advance). These heads submit issues that their committee would like the community to vote on. They shouldn't say "let's discuss some things and come up with issues to vote on at the 11th hour in the meeting," but rather "Next week in the meeting, I would like to vote on alotting manpower x and finances y to project z."

I'm not trying to be a dick, but it scares me when we start ignoring or randomly changing rules we set for very good reasons. Especially when part of the apathetic attitude comes from the community's penchant for changing already made decisions--seemingly on a whim. And what scares me most is that this is not a new or obscure rule, but one we've had and utilized and redebated and reaffirmed several times. This is simply not a surprise to anyone that it should come up.

If people want change, change it from within the system, by the system's rules. Put an motion to change the rule on the agenda a week in advance and then vote to change it. We shouldn't just say "this time around I find this rule or that bylaw inconvenient and therefore we won't follow it."

I am not trying to force a change here, Wes. The system is changing around me. Since I have taken on the role of Managing Director, I have lost you as Marketing Director right after we increased the marketing budget, I lost Christina as secretary, and now Erika is stepping down from the Treasury position. I have no officers really to confer with to decide on what things to be voted on. And in my efforts to just get the things done that can be done, I am not coming up with stuff that needs to be voted on.

So what I am requesting is that I have the opportunity to get together with people in a room to discuss things that need to happen in the AIC. Those things that are discussed that it is felt needs to be voted on by the AIC as a whole will be posted on the board, similarly to how the ad is being selected. The AIC is still being kept in the loop, they are still getting the chance to vote. The process for it is just happening differently because it has to. Not because it is an inconvenience.

And I would appreciate if someone would give me a copy of the bylaws because I keep getting dribs and drabs of it. I ask where it is and people tell me it is on the boards, but I just do not have the time or patience to sift through the forums for it.

Also, I want everyone to understand that one of the reasons that I do not have anything for people to vote on is because a lot of the work I am doing is pushing forward things that have already been decided on (like the advertising), tightening things that are already in place (like supervising Bob in certain updates for the website) and introducing new things that only benefit the AIC and do not pull from its resources at all (like booking a gig to have improvisers do interactive storytelling at Book People for the Harry Potter release party to help raise our profile).

you know what? we couldn't have had both avoiding "floating meeting dates" and breaking the agenda 1-week rule, because of the original posts about this meeting and decisions not being made in time... by the time I got involved it was impossible to satisfy both of those...

I also didn't know about the 1-week ahead of time agenda rule until Christina was kind enough to inform me after I posted about the agenda deadline and it was too late. So I corrected it, and followed that for this meeting.


the meeting date of the 20th was decided on 16 days in advance, for good reasons

We don't have a comprehensive list of rules and "bylaws" or any of that shit (that I know of, is there one? I'd be happy to see it) and there's barely anybody running stuff right now so we're just doing the best we can.

The voting items were out a week in advance. Things that mentioned the word "vote"
- Vote for Asaf to continue in his position as managing director.
SPECIFICS: Should Asaf continue in his position as managing director?
YES/NO

- Vote for Asaf to be empowered to make the same marketing decisions that we had previously voted on letting Wes make.
SPECIFICS: Should Asaf to be empowered to make the same marketing decisions that we had previously voted on letting Wes make.
YES/NO

- Vote for me to take over the secretary position.
SPECIFICS: Should Kristin take over the secretary position?
YES/NO

Sorry, should I still have more?
Managing director is currently just a title, and a sense of responsibility. Don't worry we're not going to pay him until we have an official proposal about that to vote on. All your ad stuff was the stuff we gave you free reign to implement with Erika last meeting. Secretary is already defined.

It's really frustrating and difficult to try to do something under such critical and negative attention and nitpickyness. I'm not a politician making money to represent the interests of the people I govern, I just offered to make some calls about a date, organize some info, take some notes, report some information, because there's nobody around to do it and I want to help out because I love improv and this community.

I know your attacks probably weren't personally about me, but they are at least somewhat about what I'm doing, so dude, back off a bit okay?

I apologize for posting after roughly a month of consciously ignoring the boards; bear with me since I've consumed a fifth of a score of Redhook Long Hammer IPA (bottles) from New Hampshire's finest trade brewery.

We have a wiki for posting such things as meeting minutes, bylaws, procedures, budgets, and other vital fiddly bits of administrative tedia. I'll call a small amount of bullshit on Wes' assertion that anyone's throwing out accepted rules and procedures when it's not clear where these rules and procedures were published where anyone could find them. I'll take the heat for not explaining what resources are/were available (and believe me Wes, I agree with you that the mores set down are thoroughly reasonable and that we should not cover this ground again.) Like in Dr. Strangelove, the rules do no good unless anyone knows about them. I know some people hate wikis, but I haven't heard any better suggestion on how to make this info more accessible to people (posting them on the forums does not count as a permanent accessible record - nothing on the forums should be considered official or permanent (scheduling excepted.)

I am sad to hear that Erika is backing off on the treasurer spot, though I don't blame her in the least. I understand her attention is understandably focused elsewhere at present but I appreciated her professionalism if I never said as much.

Maybe this isn't the right thread to broach this in, but I think the last thing the AIC needs is a big bout of negativity. We (the AIC) set a lot of ambitious goals and didn't have the organizational structure or experience to carry them all through to fruition. There's been a fair bit of redundancy, overlap, second-guessing and we've tried to move forward at the same time we've tried to administratively regroup and reorganize. It's depressing, I know. I've watched as a professional organization that I belong to go through very similar throes - trying to move forward and develop programs and having them stalled because the group is trying to establish itself as an entity independent of its parent organization, all the while with members complaining that not enough tangible progress is being made. I'm surprised that anyone wants to take a leadership position for the amount of shit talk they get.

I've been asked to run for the board of directors of this group. I've accepted.

I referenced my AIC experience as qualification for the position.

Hm. My beer has gone dry and the house smells like basturma.

Going forward, I'd ask that everyone take measured steps forward. Consider that people are trying to make good things happen - if you have to make a procedural objection, at least provide a suggestion of an alternate means of making progress toward the stated goal.

Yes, and...: learn it, know it, live it

If you must object, propose a way forward or an alternative.

As I've found from experience, bitterness only takes you so far.

If you must shit-talk about people or the AIC (and you never 'must'), keep it to your goddamn self. Most people performing today in Austin either didn't live through the dark days of NCT vs Heroes vs out-in-the-cold-by-your-fucking-self or are in a warm comfy stable troupe that has its shit together and doesn't need anyone else's help to find a performance venue or rehearsal space or marketing help, yadda yadda, For the rest of the people who aren't fortunate enough to be in that situation, there is an AIC to help you.

"We are all connected" and the rest of the bullshit Buddhist platitudes,

Basturma is stinky Armenian cured meat, fyi. I guess Bob ate the basturma we got at Sarah's Mediterranean Market and now smells like a fat old Armenian man. Good thing I'm in Massachusetts. That stuff stinks.

Mo Daviau wrote:I guess Bob ate the basturma we got at Sarah's Mediterranean Market and now smells like a fat old Armenian man. Good thing I'm in Massachusetts.

Sounds like Bob's having a swell time.

Nice post, Bob.

I'll see you guys at the meeting.

And I would appreciate if someone would give me a copy of the bylaws because I keep getting dribs and drabs of it. I ask where it is and people tell me it is on the boards, but I just do not have the time or patience to sift through the forums for it.

I'm going to say this with all professionalism and respect intended, but I think this is part of the problem. You are asking us to put you in charge of this community, to help make sweeping decisions, set organization-wide goals, and to be a public face for the AIC, but time and time again, you have refused to read old forum posts or even listen to stories in meetings about previous projects or attempts at things that would inform you about this community, this community's history, and how things came to be.

To some degree I understand this as this community has several years of history to go through, but a lot of issues you can search for and find realtively easily. And while most threads on here are random babblings, reading select threads, like old agendas, old committee meeting notes, etc can be very illuminating to *anyone* seeking a leadership role in the community, not just an MD.

That decisions were made is only half the story. A lot of times *why* the decision was made is just as, if not more, important. And this is what the forum posts and wiki sites contain that a mere list of bylaws does not. Time and again it has been stated that one of the concerns and problems, for nearly a year, has been the revisiting of already tried ideas and the redeciding of already decided ones. Yet, we are still bucking those decisions with flair and retreading the same paths; having the same discussions.

Look, I'm personally not on board with your management style. No secret there. But this isn't personal, nor does it have to do with any petty resentment from me leaving my position. I'm a little more grown-up and adult than that. It is just that we, as a community, have decided on rules of order. Now, I'm merely asking if we are brave or strong enough to abide by them, even when they make some things more difficult or delayed, even when breaking the rules would be so easy and occasionally more fun. Are we who we say we are or do we bail when the going gets tough? It is a question I want and need an answer to.


It's really frustrating and difficult to try to do something under such critical and negative attention and nitpickyness. ... I just offered to make some calls about a date, organize some info, take some notes, report some information, because there's nobody around to do it and I want to help out because I love improv and this community.
I know your attacks probably weren't personally about me, but they are at least somewhat about what I'm doing, so dude, back off a bit okay?

My "attacks" were not personally about you. They were not personally about anyone. In fact, I'd like to know, precisely, what lines from my posts were a) attacks, or b) personal to anyone in particular. I have yet to attack anyone. Trust me, when I do, you'll know.

Unless merely pointing out our clearly and repeatedly explained "bylaws" are now considered attacks. And I know this particular issue should not be 'out of the blue' because it has come up several times in the last 6 months at AIC meetings. I know because I was the one who brought it up each time. I am also sorry if anyone thinks following pre-determined rules of this nature is "nitpickyness." All I'm asking is for the community to follow the rules the community set for itself. Period. End of story. Nothing personal, nothing extraneous. I may be direct, I may not be as tactful as some would prefer, but this is not personal. Anything personal people are insisting on reading into this is their own baggage they are bringing to the table.

And this is nothing personal, either (though I'm sure it will sound like it), but please don't take the moral high horse or suffering for your art road with me. Why do you think I poured so much of time, sweat, effort, and personal resources into the AIC myself? Should I list the money or time I spent out of my own pocket making and distributing flyers over the past few years? The number of First Thursdays or other events where calls for volunteers went out and I was the only one to show? The fact, that to the best of my recollection I've only missed one AIC meeting...ever? That I took on leadership roles several times and know first-hand the nitpickyness of having decisions redebated and redcided after a decision was made? Kristen, I fully thank and respect you for stepping up to help out, but do not forget that I've been there, too, fully and deeply engaged for years and I am asking no more of anyone that I ever asked of myself. Why do people suddenly act like I'm making their jobs hard without understanding what their jobs are or are like? I've done them. Hell, I was in the discussions to create half of them. And I'm dating the previous secretary and have seen first hand her struggles, the effort she put in, and the shit she had to deal with. Trust me, I do know your job and the level of effort it entails, and I am not trying to make it harder. In fact, some of these rules we put in place to make *all* of the leadership jobs easier, even if it doesn't seem to be the case in this instance.
(I've even applied these rules to myself to my disadvantage on at least one occasion when I wanted to bring something up for a vote, but knew I shouldn't or couldn't.)

And if there is nothing to vote on under these vague topics. If it is just updates and continuing what was previously voted on, fine. There is no problem. But the second one of those topics, or a topic not listed, puts something new to a vote, I don't think it is fair or right.


If you must object, propose a way forward or an alternative.


Such as: "If there is a problem knowing what to vote on, then it falls on the committee heads. If there are no committee heads, then the agenda should probably read to vote on committee heads (who should have already been nominated in advance). These heads submit issues that their committee would like the community to vote on. They shouldn't say "let's discuss some things and come up with issues to vote on at the 11th hour in the meeting," but rather "Next week in the meeting, I would like to vote on alotting manpower x and finances y to project z.""
or
"If people want change, change it from within the system, by the system's rules. Put an motion to change the rule on the agenda a week in advance and then vote to change it."


Maybe this isn't the right thread to broach this in, but I think the last thing the AIC needs is a big bout of negativity.
...
If you must shit-talk about people or the AIC (and you never 'must'), keep it to your goddamn self.

Again, I may be more direct than some are comfortable with, but this is not negativity or shit-talking. This is a request that the community follow the rules it laid down for itself. (God forbid.)
And, I am not unaware that people are trying to make good things happen...and if there is any then I resent vehemently any, even slight, insinuation that I am, or was, not one of those people. If leaving my position suddenly negates the work I did before in people's eyes then the problem is with them and not me. I didn't suddenly forget the pressures, the stresses, the blood, sweat, and tears, or the desire to see good things, BIG things happen to improv in Austin. I still have the same endgoals as I always did and as most everyone else does. I didn't suddenly become anti-AIC or AIC goals and intiatives (though I'm not a fan of some of its directions of late, I still like the concept of an AIC). I didn't suddenly become an uninformed outsider. I didn't suddenly decide to be a thorn in the AIC's side for the hell of it (I always was). Hell, I'm supposed to be *on vacation* *introducing my girlfriend to my family* and five states away I'm still up at 2:00 am debating this because I care so freakin' much, not because it is fun or convenient for me or jus something to do to pass the time or piss people off for no reason. What you call negativity, I call passion and standing up for what I believe to be fair and right (I'm sure a lot of CEO's call WTO protesters "negative," too, but most are just people with an honest disagreement. It's all in where you stand how you view one with a different opinion, I guess).

Am I vocal? Yes. I ALWAYS have been and I will continue to be, even if it makes others uncomfortable. This should come as a surprise to no one. But I will not go silently on issues of procedure and order that I fully, truly, and honestly believe in no matter how often people label it personal, neagitve, shit-talking, or anything else.
(Though, I still want to know what, precisely, in my previous posts falls into any of these categories.)

Am I bitter? In some ways, yes. Of course. I also poured a lot of time, effort, money, and other personal resources into AIC projects. But, I'm also an adult who can separate my bitterness from my desire to see the community succeed. I am not leaving or disengaging entirely. I am staying engaged, just in a different capacity and on a different level. And I am exercising my right to be vocal. And if it is vocality that you don't like, all I can say is "tough." You'll simply have to kick me out of the AIC or else *gasp* suffer the horrors of a strongly-stated differing opinion and recalling of voted-upon rules every now and again.

1. There is nothing in what I am proposing to do in the meeting on Sunday that goes against the bylaws. Like I said, no major votes will happen if they require the full AIC to have knowledge of them. The votes that will happen will be of things that whoever is there as a group decides is under my jurisdiction to decide about. There are no rights lost here.

2. There is too much discussion wrapped around everything in the AIC. Things may be easy to find information about on the forums but hard to weed out of all the discussion around it. If the bylaws are so important, they should be pulled together into a single document and disseminated that way. As I stated before, I am only working on things that are within my jurisdiction, so pulling those bylaws together have not been a high priority.

3. As managing director, I should have a right to use the meetings as will better help me do my job and will better help the AIC, as long as I am not going against the bylaws. By wanting to use the meeting as more of a think tank that will help develop what will be voted on by the AIC as a whole, I feel I am keeping to that.

4. I would like a little more credit in that I feel like I am doing more than trying to make things happen. I am actually making things happen. We have been consistently polling audience at the Hideout to get data on how people are finding out about shows. We are launching an ad campaign in the Onion to be followed by others. We have streamlined the website and Bob is investigating programming that will greatly improve how the show listings are done on the homepage. We are doing a high exposure gig to help raise our profile (Harry Potter event at Book People) which will establish a strong relationship there that can lead to other gigs. And now I am working on getting the AIC a regular gig on a radio show to riff on current events and popular culture.

I am not sure which of these directions you are not on board with. But I will tell you with all honesty, that I have felt a lot more bitterness coming from you than you might be aware of. And it becomes unpleasant when I am trying to stay focused on the job. And it makes me feel like I am being called a tyrant when I have made every effort to pass all ideas by those people who matter. I think the meetings I have had with each of the key players in the AIC has shown that. I think the poll I set up to decide on what the ad in the Onion will be will show that. But I also come from a wealth of experience in these matters, Wes, of organization and production particularly when they are comprised strictly of creative types. I know that if you give someone a chance to talk, they will go on forever. And sometimes it is counterproductive to open discussions.

Part of my style involves knowing when to allow for discussion, and when things just need to happen.

Once again, the meeting on Sunday is going to be mostly a brainstorming meeting. Any votes that are necessary to be shared with the whole AIC, will be.

I see in this community, many people who want nothing more than to perform (myself included). I also see a few people who have keen production and management skills (I would also include myself here).

Thing is, they also want to perform.

Production and management takes a lot of time, is stressful and generally has no audience at the end applauding. In fact being in those positions usually garners complaints of various types, from justifiable complaints to smack talk.

So, how do we form a business here?

In part, I would say one issue is that we are a collective, meaning:

Function: adjective
1 : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or whole
Main Entry: col·lec·tiv·ism
Function: noun
1 : a political or economic theory advocating collective control especially over production and distribution; also : a system marked by such control
2 : emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity

While there is nothing wrong with collectives and in fact they may be considered a superior form of governance, we are having a few issues dealing with that. (Well, I am having a hard time with it at the very least.)

I've been involved with numerous non-profit organizations since 1990 including a small theater that Chris and I had a hand in running for 5 years, and I will say that none have been collectives. I know very little about that structure. Except that in the AIC's case I find it frustrating.
'
How can you have a managing director if its a collective? I mean, can you? That's an honest question, not snark, I really don't know. How can you have decision makers and meetings that function well if few of the collective attends them? (which is not to say that people haven't attended meetings, obviously they have). but 10 people out of 100 doesn't make a collective meeting in my mind.

But it places the leadership volunteers in awkward positions. You have people elected for their leadership ability, but they are bound by our organizational structure (a collective) to act and respond to that collective and that ongoing and sometimes extremely lengthy discussion. It holds the leader back. I see the two forms at odds.

In the non-profit structure I am used to, the board eventually will hire an ED/MD who hires and has responsibility for managing staff (THE BOARD doesn't manage staff). If the MD/ED fails in to meet their job description or moves from the org's vision, the board removes them.

The board meets monthly or quarterly to check on the ED/MD's progress. The staff meets weekly to deal with ongoing issues and minutia.

Obviously we are not in this position either as a collective (to pay an MD/ED) or in a traditional non profit. We are at the beginning stages where the board is doing all the work.

If officers/staff are elected or appointed I'd prefer to see weekly meetings (like many offices I've been a part of) where we discuss tasks and goals and a monthly meeting where every one is welcome. Officers elected for a minimum of a year after which time they could opt to run again or be voted out or reviewed or something.

Also, I would prefer a more structured path for complaints and rewards (not the forums) so that staff can get their work done without feeling so down about it. That's the thing i"ve been seeing-people volunteering and then leaving in a burn out, leaving feeling bad.

So from my vantage point it appears we have a collective ideal with some non-profit structure, with positions filled by people who are talented both artistcally and organizationally, but who are tired of feeling like they can't make decisions without someone in the community pushing back and why not just perform as that is more satisfying and less work.

I'd prefer tradiional non profit structure I guess. Maybe I just don't have enough experience with collectives to judge.

I'm very impressed though, with the hard work I have seen over the last two years. Everyone who has taken a seat at the table from scheduling to finance has shown a remarkable dedication and professionallism AND has incredible organizational skills. That doesn't get rewarded or applauded enough. To do that, and do it well is a kind of artistry in my opinion.
Chris Trew also did an amazing job setting up some structures. Asaf is working very hard.

We all work hard.

I don't know what to do next. I'll be quite honest about that. But I think something should change or a governance style should be committed to.
If we are a collective then those with the most expertise should help it run as effectively as possible, and all members should participate in that collective. If we are running in a more traditional NPO form, then let's set (or affirm what is already there) that structure and let the staff/leaders do their jobs (with quarterly reviews for oversight) and the rest of us should let them do their jobs.

And as a final note, I do appreciate us being straightforward and honest on the boards, I have no problem with that nor do I consider it necessarily negative. I do think we should all keep trying to be gentle with each other when we post, and remember that we are all volunteers with good intentions. Also, words on the internet have no vocal tone or physical expression to them. Its nearly impossible for me to gauge what the emotion* is behind a post and I know it is easy for me to take things the wrong way or not to be sure if its constructive or not. I try to assume that its constructive and if I have questions, I'll ask that person privately.

*If anyone wonders, the emotion behind this post is supportive and kind and a little frustrated and confused as to how to be of help.


I have no fundraising report to report. I think Asaf is focusing on the right things at the moment-structure and adverstising and audience tracking. Fundraising will come, in part, out of that data.

Best always,

Jules