Embedded Files
Post date: Aug 27, 2015 4:39:35 PM
From: bluesq5555 . [mailto:bluesq55@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Barrett Wilson; Mike Agranoff; Chris Riemer
Subject: Meeting followup
Gennulmen:
I don't claim to be consistent, or even trying to be....
But it occurred to me this morning that if the Board has a basic budget directive to the chairs -- "Break even (or whatever) plus x% for overhead" - then the Board would have no reason to question that chair's activities as long as the directive was met.
Might kill the proverbial two birds, or at least give a mechanism for smoother relations.
From: Chris Riemer [mailto:jcr@knowledgestreet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 3:08 PM
To: 'bluesq5555 .'
Cc: 'Barrett Wilson'; 'Mike Agranoff'
Subject: RE: Meeting followup
Perhaps. That's essentially what the old policy was, when we had the 10% rule-of-thumb model.
From: Barrett Wilson [mailto:bighim04@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:47 PM
To: Chris Riemer; 'bluesq5555 .'
Cc: 'Mike Agranoff'; Elizabeth Lachowicz
Subject: Re: Meeting followup
I was thinking that in the ideal cooperative relationship between Board and Venue Chair, our first item that we discussed last night (a budget that included G&A) wouldn't be the whole conversation, but part of a larger ongoing conversation. That larger conversation might include things like new venue possibilities, different acts that would make killer concerts, volunteer issues good and bad, how the planning process gets refined over time w/ experience, etc. etc.
Open, active communication between Board and Venue Chairs, with a sense of curiosity and respect, not turf building or manipulating (from either side of the conversation). Easy to say, not so easy to do. But this is what our Org. has strayed from, and where we need to return. Fostering this change in direction is what our VCAC is about...
From: Chris Riemer [mailto:jcr@knowledgestreet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:21 AM
To: 'Barrett Wilson'; 'bluesq5555 .'
Cc: 'Mike Agranoff'; 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'
Subject: RE: Meeting followup
Yes, this goes back to the original mission of special concerts, which was "to book acts WE want to see but can't afford at the Minstrel's admission price." So in the early days, the first two Special Concert chairs started by asking the board (and the Minstrel audience) what acts to target, and then went after them. Deciding who we wanted to see was a collaborative exercise.
Over the years, the position evolved as new people moved into the job, bringing their own sense of who we SHOULD see, rather than who we WANTED to see. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes it didn't.
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:44 AM
To: 'Chris Riemer'; 'Barrett Wilson'; 'bluesq5555 .'
Cc: 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'
Subject: RE: Meeting followup
Do you think we should pass this suggestion to the next S.C. chair? I'm wondering if it would be as good an operating model as it was 30 years ago. 30 years ago, a much larger percentage of our membership was involved in the wider folk culture: More of them attended festivals and other concert events. More of them listened to folk radio. (There was more folk radio back then too.) I think a poll these days would get a much smaller sampling of our attendees today than before. We might do better to rely upon the expertise and knowledge of our S.C. Chair.
Just a thought.
From: Chris Riemer [mailto:jcr@knowledgestreet.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 11:50 AM
To: 'Mike Agranoff'; 'Barrett Wilson'; 'bluesq5555 .'
Cc: 'Elizabeth Lachowicz'
Subject: RE: Meeting followup
No opinion on that, really. Hopefully there would be an overlap, in any case. But if we have a chair who is consistently booking acts that NOBODY else wants to see, we would have a problem.
From: Mike Agranoff [mailto:Mike@MikeAgranoff.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 7:33 PM
To: 'bluesq5555 .'; 'Barrett Wilson'; 'Chris Riemer'
Subject: RE: Meeting followup
Well, the finances are a big factor, but there are other reasons why the Board might question the venue chair. For example:
Booking a financially successful event that might not fit in well with the nature of the Folk Project, ie, a Mylie Cyrus concert, a Republican fundraiser, (or a Democratic fundraiser, for that matter), a NYC style standup comic with copius blasphemy, an overtly Christian concert, etc.
Special Concerts booking nothing but house concerts, instead of the higher-level acts for which the post had been originally intended. (As was done not too long ago.)
Getaway changing its venue from a YMCA camp to a cruise ship with a weekend cost of $1,200 / head.
From: bluesq5555 . [mailto:bluesq55@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 10:10 AM
To: Mike Agranoff
Cc: Barrett Wilson; Chris Riemer
Subject: Re: Meeting followup
Hmmm...Maybe a Christian cruise -- and an iceberg --- and not enough lifeboats. Women and preachers first!!!
No, just thinking that as a rough set of guideposts, having a budget plus overhead expectation, along with a general vibe from the Board that the chair won't be questioned on details if he/she/they stay within the budget, might go a long way toward satisfying the concerns of both parties.
J
Page updated
Report abuse