|
Scan
Gauge
Plugs in dashboard for
instant mpg and other
performance data.
Improve your mileage
|
|
|
 |
| |
Pending Vote: Contribution Required of All Guild Members
see also
Vote: Regular Financial
Contribution Required of All Guild Members
Relevant Posts:
Listing of rs_public archives of
relevance
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rs_public/message/787
From: "Sterling D. Allan, Facilitator" <sterling.d.allan@rsicc.org>
Date: Thu Feb 21, 2002 10:55 pm
Subject: IMPORTANT: Fundraising Campaign -- Need to Set our House in Order First
Subject: proposing required financial commitment for membership in RSICC
To: full RSICC membership
I spent some time on the phone today talking to several professional fund raising consultants who
deal exclusively with non-profit organizations. My hope was to find one of them who would agree to
help us land a source of funding for our organization, after which we could then compensate him/her
according to a pre-agreed rate.
What I got was a major reality check. The following is a report of what I learned.
There is a general code of ethics among professional fund raisers that they will only work on a
flat fee basis. Their low-end rates are in the ballpark of $100,000 dollars a year. So clearly, we
are not even close to being in the league where something like this would be feasible. Professional
fund-raisers are one of the best-paid professions because of the benefits they bring and the
pressure they are under.
The reason they will not work on a percentage or on an "if-come" basis, is because it
introduces inappropriate pressures that can compromise integrity.
There are websites that the start-up organizations can go to, such as the Foundation Center
www.fdncenter.org , which list tools and methods for finding sources of funding, providing
instructions on how to apply for grants, etc.
Typically, only after an organization has forged far enough on their own will they be able to
begin pulling in professional fundraising help.
Only one out of every one hundred proposals gets funding from the big players, according to
Juliet Gumbs, who charges $1200 for a day-long seminar to help start-up organizations know where to
begin.
She said there are four things these philanthropists are going to want to know: (1) Who are you?
[we are setting forth a world constitution for the protection of freedom and the fundamental rights
of all mankind] (2) Where are you going? [we anticipate that this will become the predominant world
government on this planet] (3) How do you intend to get there? [(a) by the grace of God, come up
with a remarkable document, (b) rally support from around the planet, (c) implement the
constitution.] (4) Who is your competition? [none from our spectrum, only the U.N. from the opposite
spectrum]
Before going for the big players, Family Foundations are a typical source of significant
financing. But they are going to want to see a well-defined plan and track record before they fork
out money for a cause.
The best place to start is with a direct mail campaign to individuals in our own circle of
influence. Each of us would pull together a list of contacts, e.g. thirty names each, and then we
would send a form letter from the organization, but with the signature of the person who is the
referrer, so the recipient recognizes their name and has a reason to read the correspondence.
According to Sandy Macnab, of Alexander (Sandy) Macnab & Co. (www.alexandermacnab.com), even
before we can get to that point, we have to get to a point where 100% of our board members (RSICC
members in our case) are contributing financially to the organization. When I told him only four of
the ~30 members (official and quasi) have contributed anything, and the total amount came to around
$500 in four months, he said that we have major board of director problems, and that if we expect to
survive, then ALL the fellow members of the board need to help with the financial burden of the
organization. (I incorrectly cited the donation amount, relying on hazy memory. The actual amount so
far is $390.00. The total raw expenses so far have come to $640. H.J. Springer is preparing a report
on this.)
He said, "How do you expect to go solicit funds from friends of your cause, if all those who
are involved in its leadership are not contributing?" That is one of the first things that
philanthropists will ask when approached for funds.
He cited one instance he was involved with in which members of the board secured a loan against
their personal CDs and savings accounts.
He was really quite flabbergasted at our situation. Several times, he said, "You have major
board of director problems," specifically referring to the lack of financial commitment, which
needs to come from every last member of the board. He said that I was in error for covering some of
the expenses out of my credit card. "You are playing the 'enabler' he said of me."
"As long as you pick up the slack, they're going to let you do it," he said. "And no
one is going to finance the paying off of your credit card. That is seen as bad policy."
"You can't do that," he adamantly warned. "If all the members of your board won't
help financially, your organization will not survive." "There is something about putting
your money where your mouth is," he said.
He welcomed anyone to call him if they would like to hear these things from his own mouth. He
said they could use his toll free number: (800) 708-2060.
80% of all donations come from individuals, he said. That is the primary target of his
fundraising -- finding those who sympathize with the non-profit organization and then going for
outright gifts from them to the organization. But we can't really go after that as an organization
until our board of directors (RSICC members) is set in order.
"It's not the amount that counts so much," he said. "Its the fact that they are
all sacrificing to help bring the organization forward." That core has to be in place first.
C.Arthur James, the newest member of RSICC, who also has extensive fund-raising experience,
agreed that the lack of across-the-board financial support from each guild member is problematic and
needs to be addressed.
I have to admit that I was naive coming into this organization, to think that the mere idea of
"consecration" (not my own idea, of course) would be sufficient to provide the needed
funds to keep this organization afloat. That may be the case down the road, but it definitely is not
the case now. People talk the talk, but keep their wallets locked shut. We need something more
pragmatic if we are to survive.
Before we can go approaching other individuals for possible funding of this organization, we need
to have a solid, demonstrated commitment from each of the current members to help support the
organization financially.
PRIMING THE PUMP
I would like to recommend a complete overhaul of the financial expectations put on members of
RSICC. No more can an individual be a member of RSICC and not contribute financially. Even a small
donation will suffice. If someone is already committing all their money elsewhere, and they do not
have any left to contribute here, then they are probably not committed enough to what we are doing
to warrant membership in the guild. Financial commitment flows with the focus of the heart. That is
true of the righteous as well as of the not-so-righteous. I do not expect that each and every member
of RSICC be 100% committed to RSICC, but I do expect that each and every member be committed enough
to put their money where their mouth is -- to make at least some kind of financial contribution to
the organization.
Once we have that in place, then we can in good conscience begin approaching other friends of the
cause, who might have deeper pockets. The pump will have been primed, so to speak.
The issue of our not having a legal status decided yet (e.g. 501c3, etc.) is a deterrence, but
should not stop contributions from being made. They can be directed c/o Greater Things or directly
to Sterling Allan for now (who has been incurring the brunt of the expenses), until we have agreed
upon a legal standing. http://www.rsicc.org/Donations/
MOTION:
I propose the following ballot to be put forth to the entire body of RSICC.
====PROPOSED BALLOT====
(vote not active, we're seeking feedback prior to this being put to a vote)
Each member of RSICC shall commit to contribute financially to its support.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
The amount is up to each member, but should reflect a sacrifice on their part, which is between them
and God.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
Before proceeding with fundraising efforts outside of RSICC membership, every member of RSICC will
need to have demonstrated their financial commitment by contributing at least some amount to the
guild.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
A period of one month from the time this ballot results are reported shall be given for members to
submit a financial contribution if they have not done so already.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
At the end of one month, any members of RSICC who have not contributed shall be dropped from
membership in RSICC.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment
While we are starting out, for at least the first year (ending Dec. 31, 2002), a monthly financial
contribution of some amount, determined individually, shall be required of each and every member of
RSICC.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
Even those who are destitute financially shall not be exempt from this requirement, for they can
appeal to friends to help them come up with a contribution to enable them to continue serving as a
member of RSICC.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment:
Each members shall be allowed no more than three tardy months in the year, ending Dec. 31, 2002.
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Comment
Because these items above effect membership in RSICC, the following margin shall be required for
each item to pass.
[ ] at least 2/3 or more
[ ] at least 3/4 or more
[ ] at least 1/2 or more
Comment:
Monthly contributions shall arrive by
[ ] the 1st of the month
[ ] the 15th of the month
[ ] each member can choose their monthly deadline (harder for the treasurer to keep track of issuing
reminders and such)
====END OF PROPOSED BALLOT====
This requirement would not be over and above that which is currently expected of members of
rs_form 'Form of Government' Committee but would replace it.
One final note. As I interacted with these various professional fund-raisers, something that
stuck out to me was their professionalism. They all returned my calls, even when their answer was to
be no. They were all very gracious. They were all efficient in their explanations. I was impressed.
It is a worthy standard to seek.
We have a ways to go. But what do you expect when you're dealing with the weak things of the
earth, who will thrash the nations by the power of the Spirit. Professionals might have their act
down pretty well, but there is nothing like a good, meek spirit to bring on the guidance of the
Lord.
Thank, so much, to those of you who have been helping financially.
Sincerely,
Sterling D. Allan
http://rsicc.org
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rs_public/message/794
Joseph,
Thanks for bringing these discrepancies to my attention. These do need to be addressed.
The bottom line of the spirit of consecration is that people give when and how much they deem ought
to be given, keeping for themselves only as much as is sufficient for their needs, and covering
their wants only after everyone else in the community does not have any needs yet to be met.
That is a worthy standard to aspire to, and I believe we need to keep it in our mission statement.
We probably ought to change the wording a bit because it currently says, "We also uphold the
principle of free-will consecration," but in practice we do not -- not yet anyway. Some of us
might, more that others. I would prefer more accurate wording to the effect, "We aspire to the
principle of free-will consecration." I will add this to the ballot as well; but it is not so
big a change that it warrants a mandatory vote by the entire guild.
That way we wouldn't make liars (albeit well-intentioned) of ourselves by signing onto something
that is not yet the case.
We will also need to reword the membership checklist requirement.
Currently it reads:
<quote>
There are no mandatory membership fees at this time. In accordance with the principle of
consecration, which is our answer to socialism, the guild is supported by free-will donations.
However, inasmuch as there are legitimate functions of government, and we are setting forth to
establish a legitimate government, we do anticipate that there will be obligatory payments.
Currently, the suggested minimum monthly donation is $10.00.
However, each member is strongly encouraged to commit to contribute at least a tithe of a tithe (1%)
of their net increase to RSICC. Eventually, such a commitment may be established as a stipulation
for membership. For now it is optional, but highly recommended.
"I now hereby commit to contribute at least a tithe of a tithe of my net increase to the
support of RSICC."
Yes (optional but preferable)
No
"In my case, at this time, this will amount to approximately ____ per month."
</end quote>
I propose the following rewording:
<quote>
We aspire to the principle of consecration in which there will be no poor among us because the level
of free-will gifting is adequate to cover any needs. In practice we are still quite far from that
ideal. Meanwhile, we have agreed upon the following. Each member of the guild shall commit to
contribute at least some amount each month toward the financial support of the guild. The suggested
minimum monthly donation agreed upon is $10.00, but may be more or less depending on an individual's
circumstances. Another standard that has been suggested is a tithe of a tithe of one's net increase.
What amount a member contributes is between them and God; but each member is required to contribute
at least some amount each month.
Will you commit to contribute financially to the support of RSICC? Yes (required) / No.
</end quote>
Regarding the fact that most current members became members with the understanding that there would
not be any required contributions to be a part of the guild, I reply with the following points.
(1) Those same members agreed to a higher standard, namely consecration. Not all of them have lived
up to this. Because of this 'breach of contract,' a lower standard is in order -- something more
concrete that people can keep.
(2) No one who is a member of this guild thinks that once we make a decision to do something a
certain way, that we will never change our mind, or decide on an alternative course. There are too
many dynamics: (a) We change, hopefully for the better; (b) our understanding of what we need to do
changes, hopefully for the better; (c) our level of readiness for a certain approach can be
over-estimated or under-estimated and hence need adjustment.
(3) We actually have done a disservice to this organization by at first expecting that a person
could be a member and not contribute financially. There is a principle of sacrifice in requiring a
financial commitment that helps drive the needed devotion to a common cause. We will be a stronger
organization with this in place. Such sacrifices are found in the start-up of any significant
organization.
On another point, you said,
> I am willing to explore
> alternatives such as the fundraising letter you propose.
The problem is that we cannot in good conscience expect that friends of our cause will contribute if
the board members themselves do not all contribute. Plain and simple. It's hypocritical. Who would
want to fund something in which the founding members do not believe in it enough to put their money
where their mouth is?
Also, you and others have used the word "coercion" when it comes to the possibility of a
"requirement" that each person contribute financially. This is no more
"coercion" than the other requirements we set forth for membership, such as agreeing to
the mission statement, etc. It is merely a stipulation that we agree upon that will define who and
what we are.
You also said:
> To expect members to borrow or accept charity from friends in order to
> support our ministry, when they do not have an increase to tithe from and
> may be having trouble putting food on their own table strikes me as cruel
> and unduly burdensome.
Guess what, that's where I'm at. Join the club -- no, I mean, let's share the burden.
> I think we should be cautious about violating other
> principles of ours by snooping into the personal affairs of others.
No need to snoop into anyone's affairs. All we expect is some kind of donation from every member
every month. If they need to have someone else help them come up with that, then so be it. That's
the position I'm in. I'm not asking something here that I'm not willing to do myself.
> We
> approved people for membership because we believed in them. If they are not
> contributing, we ought to trust that they have good reasons.
No one who is sufficiently dedicated to what we are doing, will be turned away by this requirement.
If they are that destitute, and cannot get anyone to help finance their involvement in the guild,
they can at least send a penny in the mail, just to keep their end of their agreement with the
guild.
Every one of the guild members needs to contribute financially before we can in good conscience turn
to other, more deep-pocketed sources of funding. The larger the sacrifice, the better. That means we
really are serious about this, and that will attract more -- not just more funds, but more
credibility as an organization, because with that sacrifice will come the increased devotion that we
need to make a go of this.
Sterling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Liberty" <joseph@patriotsaints.com>
To: <rs_public@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 7:57 AM
Subject: [rs_public] Re: IMPORTANT: Fundraising Campaign -- Need to Set our House in Order First
Sterling,
I appreciate your researching this and your well-studied analysis.
However, I have many of the same objections I had last time when the subject
of mandatory payments was broached.
As an organization we agreed to the principles of free will consecration.
Your motion is out of order until we have agreed as an organization to
repeal and abandon those principles. It will not fly for you to say that
your motion is consistent with those principles because people are free to
leave the organization. Those of us who are members joined an organization
in which it was explicitly stated that no membership fee would be required.
Even if this motion were to carry, members can not be removed for failing to
obey a rule that violates the founding principles of the organization.
The only proper way to go about what you suggest is to vote on abandoning
the principles of consecration, then vote on a motion such as the one you
propose, and if each pass to change the requirements for new members.
However, I would also oppose abandoning the principles of free will
consecration for the same reason that I voted for them in the first place:
I believe they are sound, Godly principles.
That does not mean that I am unsympathetic to the problem of underfunding.
I believe your expert is correct. We can not expect outside help until more
members contribute. But I don't think the answer is coercion, but rather to
more carefully consider whom we approve for membership in the future, ie.
choose those who believe strongly enough in what we are doing to contribute
financially. If the organization does not get free-will contribution from
members sufficient to sustain it, I would rather see us close our doors than
resort to strong-arm tactics to survive. I am willing to explore
alternatives such as the fundraising letter you propose.
Finally, let me say that I have a real problem with:
"Even those who are destitute financially shall not be exempt from this
requirement"
To expect members to borrow or accept charity from friends in order to
support our ministry, when they do not have an increase to tithe from and
may be having trouble putting food on their own table strikes me as cruel
and unduly burdensome. I think we should be cautious about violating other
principles of ours by snooping into the personal affairs of others. We
approved people for membership because we believed in them. If they are not
contributing, we ought to trust that they have good reasons.
|
