On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 5:35 PM, James Hare <messedrocker(a)gmail.com> wrote: For the purposes of accepting registration by mail and other things, I propose that the Society register for a PO Box. Here is the draft of the motion: A motion to rent a Post Office box Moved by: BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The Board of Directors shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016. 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting the Post Office box for a yearlong period. 3. Two keys shall be ordered for the Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one. This looks reasonable enough. Some copy-editing below: "Resolved, that: 1. The Corporation shall rent a 3 inch by 5.5 inch Post Office box at the Friendship Post Office at 4005 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016; 2. The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96.00 for the purpose of renting said Post Office box for a one-year period; and 3. Two keys shall be ordered for said Post Office box, with the Secretary and Treasurer each receiving one." Kirill _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc

This seems way too specific for any type of Board to be passing. Wouldn't it typically be a simple resolution authorizing the Secretary (or whoever) to rent a box as necessary? Specifying to the level of what size box and where it must be located seems extreme and unnecessary.

On 05/10/2011 07:58 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: board That's done by the limit on expenditures to 96USD. I'm not sure why the size of the box is relevant.

I suppose I would've caused much less outrage if I limited the resolution to "The Treasurer is authorized to spend $96 to go rent a PO Box somewhere" but I think it's fair for people to know where the PO Box is and what exactly we're getting out of our money. Conversely, if I had limited it to "we're getting the small PO Box at the Friendship Post Office" then there would've been the question "but how much does it cost?" There would also be the legal question of the Treasurer being able to spend corporate dollars without being explicitly authorized to do so (given the present lack of budget). So while the text of the resolution may be a bit ridiculous, I'm trying to be as specific as possible in the interest of transparency. By debating the sausage making on the mailing list, we can use our in-person meetings for things that are more important and more fun than debating back-office matters.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Kat Walsh &lt;kat(a)mindspillage.org <mailto:kat@mindspillage.org>> wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:48 PM, James Hare &lt;jamesmhare(a)gmail.com <mailto:jamesmhare@gmail.com>> wrote: Conversely, "but how I do agree that it's good to make the details transparent, but I too think that this is more specific than you generally want for a resolution. Playing "what if": the Post Office has a budget crisis, and before you go to actually get the box, prices are raised to $100 annually! The Friendship Heights post office moves next door and gets a new address! The "small" boxes are being taken out for wall repairs, but they'll rent you a medium for the same price! You, being diligent in your duties, are on your way to rent the box--or renew it next year--when you discover one of these things, and now you are deeply concerned, because even though these are trivial matters, they're in conflict and require the resolution to be amended. What I might do is resolve to rent the box and spend no more than, say, $110, without revisiting the resolution, and in the resolution refer to another document that contains the juicy^W less-important details: that the address of the box must be kept publicly on the website and in the org's records, what specific size and box number you actually got, etc. (You might also want to clarify whether "for a yearlong period" means "for this year only" or "indefinitely, for a year at a time, as long as the other conditions apply".) I support this and allowing a little bit of flexibility, such as "a Post Office in the District of Columbia, spending no more than $110". Cheers, Katie Cheers, Kat -- Your donations keep Wikipedia online: http://donate.wikimedia.org/en Wikimedia, Press: kat(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:kat@wikimedia.org> * Personal: kat(a)mindspillage.org <mailto:kat@mindspillage.org> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage * (G)AIM:mindspillage IRC(freenode,OFTC):mindspillage * identi.ca:mindspillage * phone:ask _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikimedia-DC@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc

James Hare wrote: This seems way too specific for any type of Board to be passing. Wouldn't it typically be a simple resolution authorizing the Secretary (or whoever) to rent a box as necessary? Specifying to the level of what size box and where it must be located seems extreme and unnecessary. MZMcBride

_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-DC mailing list Wikimedia-DC(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-dc