Group control, members v investors
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.