|Group control, members v investors||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Peter Scott (psak.planet.gen.nz)|
|Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 18:34:43 -0500|
Greetings all I understand that many groups use a cash call system where all members contribute equally throughout the development. However Katie has advised us of the merit of instead using full membership fees plus all and any 'investment' accepted. The merit of this being that all possible investment is utelised. (We have set our full membership at $2000, possibly to increase later.) However, we are now being faced with the more complicated consequences of this strategy in terms of control and risk. Our consultants are suggesting that it is inappropriate for non 'investing' members to have *any* say given that they are not exposed. It seems that we are facing a clash of cultures here, and there must be a happy middle solution. We have a very early founding principle that the ones making the decisions are the ones who get to live with the outcomes of those decisions. Also at present we have a policy that says that in the event of a consensus not being reached, it is decided by a 75% majority vote of *full* members. I am wondering if we can view this as a partnership of members *and* investors. I am quite comfortable with consensus breaking being by the investors in proportion to their investment. Or could there be classes of decisions where those decsions have different effects? Could full members be exposed risk-wise first, then investors? I see now why the cashcall system is so much simpler! Any helpful BTDT observations appreciated. Thanks Peter Scott Waitakere Eco-Neigbourhood Cohousing Project (WENCP) (yep its a mouthful is'nt it) a dozen full members, serious talkings with consultants, where art thou yonder land?
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.