Membership Dues Implementation Policy

SPONSORS: Matthew Andrews, Fundraising and Finance Committee

VETTING COMMITTEES: Fundraising and Finance Committee; Membership Diversity and Volunteer Recruitment Committee

FLOOR MANAGER: Matthew Andrews

SHEPHERD: Matthew Andrews

SUMMARY: Update the 2018 Membership Dues policy to improve implementation and reach our financial goals.

BACKGROUND: The Membership Dues policy for 2018 and 2019 has not been implemented beyond our core membership, most of whom already donate to the GRP. Consequently, the dues policy has failed to raise significant new money and our budget for 2020 faces a $6,000 deficet. Each member who is able to pay ought to take some responsibility for the financial health of the party. In order to expand our dues program, it must be integrated into the work and culture of our party at every level.

TEXT OF PROPOSAL: As of June 2020 the dues scale shall be updated to $50/year Supporter, $35/year General, $20/year Student, $10/year Low Income. The waiver option for hardship or the legally restricted shall remain in effect. Chapters shall be responsible for making the current Annual Dues form available at all events where we are legally allowed to collect money, and asking people to pay dues as part of the enrollment of new members. Chapters should entrust their local Secretary and/or Treasurer with collecting this money, recording it, and passing it along to the GRP Treasurer. Efforts to collect dues and their results should be included in quarterly chapter reports to StateCom. The Treasurer shall include dues collection in his or her quarterly report to StateCom. The report shall include the total number of dues paying members over the past year, and other trends such as whether collection is going up or down. The Secretary and Treasurer should collaborate to ensure that dues are recorded in our membership database and that an automated renewal reminder email is sent after a year. The Fundraising and Finance Committee shall set a goal for the number of dues paying members and the amount of money to be raised by dues, along with a compelling explanation of why it is necessary, and a breakdown of where they expect the dues to be collected. This plan will be submitted to AdCom for final approval and relevant parts sent to chapters and working committees for implementation. The Membership Diversity and Volunteer Recruitment Committee will establish a protocol and message for soliciting dues at chapter meetings or other in person events. This plan will be submitted to AdCom for final approval and sent to chapters for implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION: As outlined in the text of the proposal, this policy will require participation from the Secretary, Treasurer, chapters, AdCom, Fundraising and Finance Committee, and the Membership Diversity and Volunteer Recruitment Committee.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The additional expenses will be minimal. This proposal is about including a dues collection message in the work that we already do. If we can get 100 people to pay $25 on average, that will raise $2,500.


Showing 5 reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Elie Yarden
    commented 2020-05-11 15:19:35 -0400
    I would go further and say that the “ . . .Dues policy for 2018 and 2019 . . .” was never implemented, and could not be, for the simple reason that it conflated the financing of the Party with membership. Thus, I am not a member of the Green-Rainbow Party. I am a Massachusetts voter, registered as a Green-Rainbow Party (designation “J”) voter. And thus eligible to vote im G-RP primaries, identify as such in public, as well as otherwise enjoy this reputation. According to the Bylaws, I am a member of the Greater Boston Chapter of the G-RP, and thereby eligible to represent that G-RP local chapter when elected or requested to do so, I an not Member of the G-RP for the simple reason that I have never paid Membership Dues nor carried a Green-Rainbow Membership Card;

    It is true that we met by phone as members of the MVDR—(Our “Membership Committee”) to discuss concerns voiced at a meeting, speaking less than a half-hour. I explained that a proposal that relied heavily on already hards-working officers of the party. As the case may be. Instead I suggested the possibility of employing some one person to maintain the Membership list. with computer skills or the ability to learn them quickly, who sees to the system that issues yearly reminders for renewal You heard me long enough to agree that this could be done for the first year building toward 1000 in about five hours week.

    I also recalled to you the value of a duly issued Membership Card that could be renewed at request.

    There remained fundamental differences. The are due to ignorance and resolveable. That this might be too boring for you, I cab easily accept, as well s your contempt. The this does not justify your ignoring everything we spoke about — as if the conversation never occurred And to imply that I was remiss in carrying … Enough! What did you hope to gain by listing the MDVR as co-sponsor iof the proposal
  • Brian Cady
    commented 2020-05-05 20:31:37 -0400
    1. A sense of affiliation by dues-payers is the best possible result, as opposed to so many dollars per year.
    2. The inspiration behind this is important, so let’s share it – a vision of financial comradery and fiscal independence of the 99%. Howie Hawkins’s article on this inspires. A listing of what could be done might inspire – magazine, active blog, forum…
    3. Designated responsibility within this proposal is important; It’s good that that’s done.
  • Brian Cady
    tagged this with Important 2020-05-05 20:31:37 -0400
  • Brian Cady
    tagged this with Good 2020-05-05 20:31:35 -0400
  • Matthew Andrews
    published this page in Spring_2020_statecom_proposals 2020-04-28 13:26:41 -0400