Discussion of voting rights for volunteers

[Darkerlight]

It will be open to the public to attend, although only staff for Kumoricon 2007 can vote.

I thought that being an attendee or volunteer gave voting rights since it is a membership now and not just an admission. Has this changed?

There are two classes of membership; voting, and non-voting. Staff are voting, and members are non-voting.

Where do volunteers fall then? It seems unfair that they would not be able to vote on the staff that they're volunteering for.

[Admin: Split from http://www.kumoricon.org/forums/index.php?topic=2090.0 to allow the volunteer voting discussion to continue.]

[woodsmn]

It will be open to the public to attend, although only staff for Kumoricon 2007 can vote.

I thought that being an attendee or volunteer gave voting rights since it is a membership now and not just an admission. Has this changed?

There are two classes of membership; voting, and non-voting. Staff are voting, and members are non-voting.

Where do volunteers fall then? It seems unfair that they would not be able to vote on the staff that they're volunteering for.

And what about the honorary staff members? I saw a few of them floating around near the end of the con, and I must say that I'm quite curious now.

[TomtheFanboy]

Th volunteer benefit of "Honorary Staff" had certain rights and abilities that were argued over amongst the staff and through disagreement (and in the instance of the Kumorikash, and incompetence) several benefits were lost. The Kumorikash was never printed because of a lack of paper, I used a strong word in reference to it but  I cannot lay the blame on any one person so none of you should either.

Votes for volunteers who had put in over 25 hours of work (or maybe it was 20) was still contested last I heard. I suggest that you show up at the elections anyway, even if it turns out that you can't vote. We are currently a convention where your voice can still be heard in a non-voting capacity even if you are denied a vote.

Final note: before anyone starts attacking staff or executives about the voting issue, please remember that there is a business side to the convention and the votes must be treated as they would when choosing a CEO or other important business position in a company. With the upmost care and seriousness.

[JeffT]

Where do volunteers fall then? It seems unfair that they would not be able to vote on the staff that they're volunteering for.

Volunteers are not staff; they are still considered in the non-voting class (attendees). The main differentiation between staff and volunteers is that staff sign up for a specific area of responsibility which they are obligated to fulfill, while volunteers have more freedom and can basically say no to any job or hours that they haven't already committed to.

[Darkerlight]

Where do volunteers fall then? It seems unfair that they would not be able to vote on the staff that they're volunteering for.

Volunteers are not staff; they are still considered in the non-voting class (attendees). The main differentiation between staff and volunteers is that staff sign up for a specific area of responsibility which they are obligated to fulfill, while volunteers have more freedom and can basically say no to any job or hours that they haven't already committed to.

Staff can say no to any job they aren't committed to as well, hell some of them said no to jobs they were already committed to. We're still an all volenteer staff, if the volenteers do the same work then why shouldn't they get the same votes? There are some volenteers that put in more hours than their staff conterparts.

I think that this tangent should be moved to another part of the forums, looks like we've diverged from the orginal topic but I believe this needs further discussion.

[Admin: Split has been done, continue discussion.]

[MichaelEvans]

I personally am split on this.  I do think that anyone putting in significant time should receive recognition, and if possible, some kind of corollary benefit for it.  However I have not been a part of this long enough to know the depth of responsibilities that go with voting.  I am for an official position of Honorary Staff, which would at least carry visual recognition of that status (Not the standard badge/lanyard/etc).  Though the precise qualifications, responsibilities and benefits associated with the position are another area that is beyond my experience; I do believe that they should exist and be clarified.  I would however suggest that establishing the position's existence, and then defining exactly what each of those are, be separated.  I imagine most will agree that such a position would be a good thing, but that anything beyond that will vary in unforeseen ways.

[Darkerlight]

I agree that it should be well defined. To give you a general idea though, voting was open to the public last year and before that, it is this current year that the voting rights have changed. It was my understanding that this was to prevent someone from say showing up with a crowd of friends and thowing the election. We wanted everyone voting to CARE about what they were voting for, to have a vested intrest in it. A volenteer working enough hours has obviously proven they both care and have a vested intrest in what happens to the con or they would never had worked that long in an event they paid to go to. Kumoricon is like a business but it is a volenteer run business. I think we're beinging to lose site of that.

[JeffT]

I agree that it should be well defined. To give you a general idea though, voting was open to the public last year and before that, it is this current year that the voting rights have changed. It was my understanding that this was to prevent someone from say showing up with a crowd of friends and thowing the election. We wanted everyone voting to CARE about what they were voting for, to have a vested intrest in it. A volenteer working enough hours has obviously proven they both care and have a vested intrest in what happens to the con or they would never had worked that long in an event they paid to go to. Kumoricon is like a business but it is a volenteer run business. I think we're beinging to lose site of that.

To clarify, in the previous elections that occurred (held in 2006 to elect the 2007 officers), voting was only open to staff. It was in the 2005 elections to elect the 2006 officers where voting was open to the public. I'm just clarifying by stating the dates.

Some benefits, including voting, are reserved for staff because there needs to be a distinction between staff and volunteers. "Volunteer" status can indicate as little work as one hour (or less) and although there is nothing wrong with only volunteering for an hour, it doesn't meet the bar that is set for staff. Volunteers don't even always register officially as volunteers and they also don't sign the policies document that applies to staff. In addition to having a distinction in the benefits, we want to preserve the value of the elections process as a whole by making sure that those with a say have invested a certain amount of personal effort and care in the organization.

I agree that voting cannot be open to the public; there is a huge risk of a hostile takeover. But if we allowed all attendees to vote, this risk is still the same. Observe that in elections held in 2005 for 2006 officers, there was not a huge additional turnout of attendees even though they were eligible to vote. However, the possibility of a hostile takeover remains the same because there is a pool of thousands of people who could potentially turn out to affect the vote.

It is not the case that we want to discount the opinions of volunteers, attendees, and the general public. But the elections process is a part of the checks and balances that ensure that the organization remains stable for the long term, yet also ensures that the opinions of the membership are represented. Part of this is assigning greater weight to the opinions of those who have invested much more in the organization, and who are more knowledgeable about its needs. If we give voting rights to a large body of people who would not actually be likely to exercise those rights by voting, then there is a significant risk of a result occurring that is contrary to the actual opinion of the membership, or that is based on uninformed opinion.

Regarding the specific issue of whether honorary staff should be allowed to vote (which means, to become staff members officially); I am undecided at the moment. My comments apply to the distinction between staff and volunteers in general.

[MichaelEvans]

I think it might also depend on exactly what the qualification for Honorary Staff is.  With a title like that, I'd hope that they are surpassing a high enough bar for the term to carry it's logical meeting.  Maybe voting for honorary staff could count if they had passed a secondary threshold.  Yet after thinking I have to wonder.  What would the difference between Honorary Staff and (real) Staff be?  Should they not instead be promoted to a full staff position and responsibility in light of their commitment?

[Darkerlight]

To clarify as well, I've been using Vallie's definition of honorary staff volenteers: At 20 hours, you've hit Honorary Staff status. I see no difference in the quality of commitment between them and full staff.

[RoamingGnome]

I really don't know about wether or not volunteers with a certain amount of hours getting voting rights.  I do think though depending on how many hours they work that they should get a discount on getting into the con.  Even up to getting in free if they work more than a certain amount of hours.  I know for instance for the San Diego Comic Con that is the way they work it.

[Crystal]

For the clarity of this discussion, may I ask if anyone has hard data about how many people earned the title of honorary staff and how many hours they ACTUALLY volunteered?

The minimum is 20 hours, but I know some people who fullfilled their 20 hours months before the convention and continued to volunteer above and beyond any level of compensation offered by con. They earned their passes and then worked the entire weekend.

Setting a minimum hour requirement that volunteers could meet and become voting members gives them another level of real compensation that does not cost the Con anything. Also, once a person puts that much work in, they are just as personally and emotionally invested in the best intrest of the Con as regular staff.

Thats my two cents.

[superjaz]

If we give voting rights to a large body of people who would not actually be likely to exercise those rights by voting, then there is a significant risk of a result occurring that is contrary to the actual opinion of the membership, or that is based on uninformed opinion.

to think in regards to the volunteers who made it to honary staff, there weren't that  all that many for one main reason, they became staff after a certain point, it really drained the amount volunteers this year (not that its bad this happend but it did mean less floaters able to fill in here and there)

leads to another question why should volunteers vote? when the positions beiging run for dont directly affect them, or does it? yes it does why?
(feel free to corect me if i get somthing wrong)
 as i learned the opps director heads up 3 catagories, things vital to k-con(each that have there own managers and what not)   
1 yojimbo
2 registraion
3 volunteers
the first 2 are staffed and thus they get to vote and have their opinions heard

 vonlunteers opinions are most likely going to get over looked, and as everyone knows there are some changes needed to the way volunteers are handled this year that would make things run smoother for next year

my personal opinion is that at least, honorary staff get to vote(and this is not saying if your volunteer you dont deserve to, or an atendee you dont dersever to please no kill me)) but we've put in the hours and seen how things went on and gone to meetings, seen the good n da bad,  what works what dont
vallie the volunteer manager nows who was honorary staff before con, it was impossible to keeo track of every ones hours during con

[Rathany]

I don't think that voting rights is the most vital aspect of rights for honorary-staff.  From discussions I've had, my impression was that Yojimbo and other Staff did not realize that these people who wanted snacks from the con suite, or who were trying to get stuff done behind the scenes were not regular attendees.  Lack of recogition during the con made their jobs harder.  

Also, it is my understanding that some volunteers would be staff, but they are not yet 18.  When I approached Kumoricon wanting to be staff, I was encouraged to be a volunteer instead, and was told that I would have MORE benefits as a volunteer than as staff.  (But I went the staff route anyway)

People who put in three or four 12 hours days at the con should not have to wait in line at the dealer's room or if they want to get into an event and should be able to grab food.  Fortunitly, food was brought around to us, which was awesome.  Actually, that was beyond awesome.  

I am not saying that voting rights are not important and should not be taken seriously, I just think that respect from other staff and access to food is more important.  To do this it's going to be important that we can clearly, visually distinguish honorary staff.  

[Hawkeye]

Part of the reason we had a hard time (I speak as a yojimbo) recognizing who was honorary staff and who wasn't is because we were given no way to clearly identify them, whether it be a list of badge names, different badges, special stickers, or something.  I fully agree that honorary staff members should be given voting rights, unfortunately the execs and founding Altonimbus members may not agree with me.  Even though it may seem like some positions do not directly affect our volunteers, I beg to differ because volunteers, much like yojimbo, work for ALL departments depending on where they're stationed at the current time.  Thus they have the right to pick the people they're working for.  For example, volunteers working at the reg desk are under ops, but volunteers assisting in panels are under programming, volunteers working with Street Team are under publicity, volunteers being gophers for our guests are under relations.  So it does directly affect them whether we older staffers take the time to think about that or not.  The one disadvantage to being staff is that if we refuse to take on a job given to us by our superiors is that we face the risk of having our badges pulled and/or being redlisted for the following year depending on the situation, plus as staff if we refuse it could potentially throw the con into chaos as what almost happened when Sean Larson stepped down as relations director.  I may be off topic somewhat, but hopefully this will give people some food for thought.

[JeffT]

If we give voting rights to a large body of people who would not actually be likely to exercise those rights by voting, then there is a significant risk of a result occurring that is contrary to the actual opinion of the membership, or that is based on uninformed opinion.

to think in regards to the volunteers who made it to honary staff, there weren't that  all that many for one main reason, they became staff after a certain point, it really drained the amount volunteers this year (not that its bad this happend but it did mean less floaters able to fill in here and there)

In the text from my post you quoted, the "large body" I was referring to was all attendees, not volunteers or honorary staff.

[TomtheFanboy]

OK, for a volunteer to be an "honorary staff" member they have to work for 20 hours on things purely for the convention. This work can be done before hand with street team or other departments (though at the volunteer level they'll likely be doing street team duties).

For a Staff member to retain their status the minimum number of hours they must work at the convention is 16, correct? We all know that most staff do a lot of work before the convention but most don't have to. In order to be a member of staff and thus get a vote, you need to pay your ten dollars to register for the convention, be approved as a staff member by one of the Department Directors. Then once the convention arrives you can spend 8 hours on Friday (at set up), and then 4 hours Monday night cleaning up, and then 4 hours on Tuesday morning loading stuff into a truck. You will then be qualified for a vote in the next election, a possible hotel discount (if the contract has enough rooms to include people at your level of the staff hiearchy), access to the ConSuite for snacks and beverages, and the ability to navigate the restricted areas of the convention with ease.

There are a variety of staff perks beyond the ones listed but they are not official perks until you get to the Director level in the hiearchy and that is beyond the scope of this discussion.

It would be simple enough to look at the basic hours the top level volunteers put in and then provide the benefits at the convention and then re-examine the work done by each volunteer afterwards to reward the responsible and capable among the volunteers a full vote at the elections. It would be on a case by case basis and would be easy to write into the bylaws (the problems with the bylaws and their ever-pending ratification notwithstanding). You could set a required number of staff signatures to verify the work done by a volunteer, the signature of the Volunteer Manger, and the signature of a Board Member (Directors, Founders, or Executives) to give the official approval specifically for them to vote. That satisfies the need to reduce the risk of hostile takeover and helps reduce the nepotism that's been lurking in the wings the last couple years.

From the last ratified version of the bylaws I read, the electoral body was not well defined at all really and it needs to be ratified anyway. Why not go the extra mile and work out an official policy to give a real reward to the volunteers who have earned it?

There are two reasons I feel this is a very important issue.

The first is that many of the volunteer benefits promised to the volunteers and APPROVED by the board were not delivered. The was no Kumorikash this year. There was not an actual staff dinner (there was some pizza brought it but I don't dare to call that a delivery on the promise).
Honorary Staff Volunteers were allowed access to the con suite and I am glad of that. Did they get the T-shirts?(yes)

The second is that non-staff WERE allowed to vote at lasst years election. If there had been a real election then perhaps someone would have noticed. The 2007 election was a joke and the staff had actually agreed with who would be in what position beforehand. The only reason I don't expect that to happen this year is that there are people with very different ideas running against each other and I doubt that many of them can be placated with promises of policy changes and event scheduling. Now more than ever we need more people voting and if we can't open the elections to the public, we should at least allow the people who did the work to have a voice.

[superjaz]

Honorary Staff Volunteers were allowed access to the con suite and I am glad of that. Did they get the T-shirts?

we got shirts, was bit of a debate first on which shirt we got the staff shirt or the regular atendee shirt, eventualy the powers that be decided we got staff shirts,
the con sweet acess was cool, little intimadating cuz its like "is it okay to take somthing? really? cuz i really dont need the soda.." i dont think i relaxed and sat down till guspasho told me to when i went up after manning the info desk for hours, then after another bout of info desk i was taking brownie her dinner and she said "your not staff get some sleep!" i think i was working to hard if over worked staff aretelling me to sleep

i kinda scarred her or smthing later when i as sorting the chocolates of the world, she said it was okay to have some as long as i mixed them up again

[Hawkeye]

I think Tom summed up the rest of what I may have had to say on this.  Part of the reason I feel so strongly about treating our volunteers right from the beginning is because half of them turn into our staffers and we don't want to screw that up.

[valliegirl]

Sorry it's taken so long for me to speak to this.  I'd been without a computer the better part of a week and was working overtime at work all week, so I'm just now catching up on everything on the forums. 

I would love for volunteers who have worked over a certain amount of hours to have voting rights.  However, what I want and what current policy will allow for me to offer the volunteers are two separate things.

"Honorary Staff" isn't an official title or position.  In fact, at this point, I would call the entire volunteer incentive program unofficial.  Here's why...

When I took the position of volunteer coordinator, I did it specifically to try to find a way to get the volunteers recognized for the amount of work they do and give them some sort of thank you for the fact that they PAY us to work for us.  For those that put in way over 24 hours, I want for them to be compensated for the fact that they're doing just as much as a staff member is required to do.

I sat down, laid out the plan.  By February, it was finalized, and I got approval for it from my director.  I thought that made it official.

By May, a few volunteers had put in over 20 hours worth of work.  In theory, according to my design, this would make them an honorary staff member and basically get them all the benefits a staff member would have, plus something to make up for the fact that they paid more than the staff member to do that amount of work. 

When I got down to the logistics of getting these people recognized, I came across a huge road block.  Apparently, having director's approval for the things I was offering wasn't enough.  I had to have approval from the entire board, especially when it came to voting rights.  This was not in any way made clear to me before May. 

Also, there are people that don't believe that hours put in before the convention should count as much as hours put in at the convention.  There are people who believe that pre-con hours should count at a fraction, still as of this point undetermined, of the hours put in at con.

So after people had been working towards the goal for three months and had made the goal I'd set, I was being told that I couldn't offer what had already been approved and that the amount of hours I was asking people to put in should be two or three times more than it is, my heart wasn't in it anymore.  And on top of it, I had my time being split between my actual job that pays me, my work as registration manager, and my work as volunteer coordinator.  And after May, helping the volunteers got pushed to the back burner, and I'm really sorry.  You guys deserved better than that.

Other issues that need to be addressed in the coming year:  it's really really difficult to accurately state at con how much work the volunteers do.  I had quite a few people working 12 hours per day but couldn't get away from what they were doing to let me know what they'd been roped into.  I had people wander up and just start helping with something.  I even had people that weren't even registered try to come in and help and I had to send them back to door reg to actually pay for a ticket.  I tried implementing at con a sign up sheet for people to tell me where they were and when.  And between the fact that all of those sheets disappeared and that people weren't signing them...   Fail.  We have to come up with a better system next year.

Next issue....  Upgrades.  I can't tell you how many people upgraded from volunteer to staff.  Quite a few people actually PAID ATTENDEE PRICE and then went and signed their weekend away to the con as a staff member.  We don't give refunds for the difference between staff price and attendee price.  It had been my plan to give these individuals all the benefits of a volunteer on top of the benefits they get as a staff member. 

Another issue, and one we all seriously need to work on, is staff perception of the volunteers and of their rights.  Not all, but many staff members, didn't like the volunteer incentives because they felt staff members weren't getting enough benefits.  But those staff members do not keep in mind that a) they get discounted admission, b) they get discounted room price, and c) they get access to all the parties and voting rights and everything from the get go.  Volunteers have to work for what they get.  And even then, they don't get enough respect from us.  I'm not just talking about recognization from one person or one group...  There's a lot of people in general staff and in the hierarchy that I've heard making this complaint.  Making volunteers more visible so we can pick them out of the crowd is only a small fraction of it...  Attitudes need to be adjusted.  Maybe instead of taking away volunteer benefits so that staff can feel better about themselves, we should be making sure that staff know they're appreciated as well, and then everyone would win, ne?

I will say that I really really really appreciate Meg and Rian.  I know for a fact that they both care about volunteers and their treatment.  They were both really involved with helping me design these incentives.  They did what they could to make volunteers feel included this year.  They invited volunteers up to con suite and to the after party, which is pretty awesome. 

There's plenty of other staffers that are very good to the volunteers, and I don't want people to think that I'm saying ALL staff members don't want volunteers to have benefits, but there are obviously some out there with this perception.  And I'm not going to name names, because I want to keep the peace, but some I've overheard talking about it and some have come right out and said it to me directly.  Those people know who they are. 

I do take full responsibility for the failure this year with the incentives, I apologize to each and every one of the volunteers.  More really could have and should have been done on my part.  I am working on a way to make sure you all get something for the time you put it, but that is still to be determined.  Once the elections are settled and we have a new volunteer coordinator in place, I will be giving all of the information I have regarding the volunteers from 07, and everyone who has already signed up for 08.  And we can work towards making things better for everyone involved in 08.

Oh and just to give you a list of everyone that I know put in 20 or more hours:

Rachael Kirkland
Jasmine Lady
Patrick King
Morgan Woods
Chris Sept
Chris Merritt
Derek Hayes
Wendy Gleason

edit:  I will note that each of these people did a ton of work for us at con, and almost all reached 20 hours before con even started.

If you put in over 20 hours at con as a volunteer, and I didn't note you, please email me so that I can rectify that error.  I want everyone to be accounted for.  valliegirl@gmail.com

[valliegirl]

For a Staff member to retain their status the minimum number of hours they must work at the convention is 16, correct?

.......

The first is that many of the volunteer benefits promised to the volunteers and APPROVED by the board were not delivered. The was no Kumorikash this year. There was not an actual staff dinner (there was some pizza brought it but I don't dare to call that a delivery on the promise).
Honorary Staff Volunteers were allowed access to the con suite and I am glad of that. Did they get the T-shirts?(yes)

24 hours minimum work required for staff members during con. 

The volunteer benefits weren't approved by the board, and that's the problem.  I didn't find out until may that anyone other than the ops director needed to approve and ratify any of it.  It was approved by Brownie.  And then it was announced officially.  And no one said boo about it until the volunteers actually worked the hours and I tried to get them recognized for it.

And then I was being told that pre-con hours don't count as much as at con hours, so my incentive plan goals needed to be multiplied by two or three.  So even if it got "approved" a person had to work maybe 60 hours pre con to get recognized.

What I would suggest, all of you who would like yourselves heard, come to the elections anyway, whether they let you vote or not.  That way you can at least talk to the nominees about their plans for the next year. 

Some volunteers got shirts, but I don't think all of them did. 

[guspasho]

Staff can say no to any job they aren't committed to as well, hell some of them said no to jobs they were already committed to. We're still an all volenteer staff, if the volenteers do the same work then why shouldn't they get the same votes? There are some volenteers that put in more hours than their staff conterparts.

I want to address this because it cuts to the heart of the discussion - what is the distinction between staff and volunteers? I don't think this question has been properly addressed. Staff can NOT simply say no to any job they do not want to do. The problem is that our current system leaves the enforcement of this entirely up to the department directors who have only very rarely been willing to fire a staffer. We are all volunteer staff in that we are all unpaid, but when you sign up to be staff you agree to perform all duties related to your position. Volunteers face no such agreement, they negotiate their jobs individually and they suffer no consequences if they fail to fulfill any commitment. The problem is that staff also seem to suffer no consequences either.

So how would you recommend we divide the staff and the volunteers? If we retain the same distinction, how can we better enforce it among the staff? Should someone other than the director have the power to fire a staffer? And if so, then who? It's a very difficult decision that a typical person would prefer to avoid than confront.

[guspasho]

One more real easy thing to address. The reason we want to weigh at-con volunteer hours more heavily is because they are needed so much more, and the urgency is always immediate. Vallie can tell you how grateful she is of the volunteers we had during Kumoricon.

As for Vallie not knowing about the voting rights, well, that is something that needs to be done in accordance with our bylaws, which of course have not been made public FOR A WHOLE YEAR.

It's about time we corrected that last point. So the bylaws that were voted on at the last elections meeting and are the operational ones (not draft revisions or whatever) will be made physically available at the elections meeting for all to read, and made available online as soon as I can get to it.

[valliegirl]

I want to address this because it cuts to the heart of the discussion - what is the distinction between staff and volunteers? I don't think this question has been properly addressed. Staff can NOT simply say no to any job they do not want to do. The problem is that our current system leaves the enforcement of this entirely up to the department directors who have only very rarely been willing to fire a staffer. We are all volunteer staff in that we are all unpaid, but when you sign up to be staff you agree to perform all duties related to your position. Volunteers face no such agreement, they negotiate their jobs individually and they suffer no consequences if they fail to fulfill any commitment. The problem is that staff also seem to suffer no consequences either.

So how would you recommend we divide the staff and the volunteers? If we retain the same distinction, how can we better enforce it among the staff? Should someone other than the director have the power to fire a staffer? And if so, then who? It's a very difficult decision that a typical person would prefer to avoid than confront.

Link to the Org Chart:
http://kumoricon.org/?page_id=86

These are our staff positions.  Each and every one of these positions should be considered full year positions.  I think they should be filled in November and every member of staff should be committed to fulfilling their duties the entire year from when they accept the position until someone else is appointed the position the following year.  Those who have jobs that only really apply to con weekend should be involved with the promotional activities during the year, and "volunteer" jobs like swag bag stuffing and mailing out badges.  Those who have jobs that are mainly only active during the year before the con should pull 24 hours during con helping with Yojimbo, Reg, Info Desk, etc. 

Staff members should have consequences for not fulfilling their obligations. 

Who should be responsible for keeping track of the staff members and making sure that obligations are being fulfilled? 

I would think off the top of my head that would be the job of the director in charge of that staff member.  There used to be a position of Personnel Director which was eaten by the position of Secretary.  The Secretary keeps file of all of the registrations of the staff, but do they have any responsibility in the termination of a staff member, whether direct or indirect?

Also, for those people who sign up and then go AWOL at time of con, we already have a system of dealing with these people.  It's called the Red List.  It's a matter of actually putting people on the list that shouldn't be staff in the future, keeping it updated, and checking it against those registering as staff so that we're not having people slip through that we know won't do the work.  Perhaps this would also be the job of Personnel Director/Secretary. 

The hugest imperfection in the system is lack of enforcement.  And if someone doesn't want, or knows they cannot fulfill, the responsibilities involved with being a director, they need to decline the nomination.  And maybe, just maybe, we should nominate people that we believe will do a good job instead of the joke nominations that seem to come up year to year. 

One more real easy thing to address. The reason we want to weigh at-con volunteer hours more heavily is because they are needed so much more, and the urgency is always immediate. Vallie can tell you how grateful she is of the volunteers we had during Kumoricon.

As for Vallie not knowing about the voting rights, well, that is something that needs to be done in accordance with our bylaws, which of course have not been made public FOR A WHOLE YEAR.

It's about time we corrected that last point. So the bylaws that were voted on at the last elections meeting and are the operational ones (not draft revisions or whatever) will be made physically available at the elections meeting for all to read, and made available online as soon as I can get to it.

I am absolutely thankful to all the volunteers that help us out....  but not just at con but pre-con as well.

We finished bag stuffing of over 3000 bags in less than 8 hours.  I was told we'd need an entire day to get through it.  We started at two pm and were finished around 8 or 9pm.  We never ran out of bags at con.  We had hundreds of bags left over.  For those who remember previous years where we were still stuffing bags on Saturday morning, this is HUGE to me. 

Envelope stuffings!  If I had to do this work myself, I wouldn't have survived.  There were approximately 4 meet ups during the year.

And then all the work done in promoting between street team and going and manning booths at other events... that is what gets us our turn out!  We had a growth of 25% this year, and I want to keep up this trend. 

At con hours are huge because we know there's other stuff the volunteers could be doing and they choose to help us instead.  But I don't want for that to take away from how important pre-con work is to us as well. 

[superjaz]

and thing is i don't think chris and i missed a pre-con volunteer opportunity (besideds sakura con and chibichibi con) and we had 31 hours not including the friday before con at which i spent the day organizing and running the info desk and handling whatever gliches that came up.
it would be near inpossible to meet 60 hours of volunteering before con, i know thats the point because people want at con vounteer hours not pre con, if so just say so,
thing is the pre con hours are as vallie said vital for the con and its a great way for the staff to start getting to know the volunters

i am just just worried that if we put somthing up that says at con hours are wourth more, we are going to lose our volunters because who's going to want to spend 8 hours stuffing bags if its counted as 4 its like saying our help is worth less, and even tho most people want to just help out, and dont care about the perks,  its like a small slap in the face, your help isnt as good.  I would be worried that people would stop putting in the pre con hours just on the principle of it,  and we need our pre con volunteers

I'll say this, next years volunteer manager has their work cut out for them .....  o.o

[guspasho]

The last two posts highlight problems that could easily be solved hand in hand. Other than Vallie, I am guessing that relatively few staffers gave the volunteers any pre-con opportunities. Instead, we have grunt-level staffers and things like street team members. These positions could be removed from the charts and rolled into volunteer opportunities instead. That would be a LOT for our volunteer manager to take on and manage.

[valliegirl]

The last two posts highlight problems that could easily be solved hand in hand. Other than Vallie, I am guessing that relatively few staffers gave the volunteers any pre-con opportunities. Instead, we have grunt-level staffers and things like street team members. These positions could be removed from the charts and rolled into volunteer opportunities instead. That would be a LOT for our volunteer manager to take on and manage.

Volunteers did a lot of work with street team as well, however there was also a debate on how to count street team drops.  In the end, I settled on counting each street team drop as 15 minutes/ 4=1 hour of work.  Members of Pocky Club were really instrumental with street team this year, and outside of Tom most people in Pocky Club were attendee volunteers. 

Also on a publicity aspect, we have the amount of hours put in at booths.  There was the booth at the Asian festival in Eugene that Rachael manned, as well as the booth as Sakura con.  Up at Chibi Chibi con, I was with Rodney and Kry.  And at the Uwajimaya Festival in April, we had quite a few volunteers show up in the pouring rain and cold like Jaz and Chris and Patrick. 

And I think the swag bag stuff would also qualify under publicity, and they got the swag to stuff.

So there was a lot of volunteer pre-con stuff with publicity.

And then there was the Reg stuff that I called people out for on 4 separate occasions.  That's about it for Ops though.

The only thing Programming really had before con was Mini-con but that was mostly manned by staff while volunteers took care of stuffing envelopes.  If we do Mini-cons again and we separate them from other volunteer activities, that could be another way for volunteers to get pre-con hours.

I don't know of anything that Relations needed pre-con.

I do think that street team can be done on a more volunteer basis.  I think we should focus on guiding the people who sign up as "staff grunt" to have a more particular position...  one we'd be dragging them into doing anyway, such as reg or yojimbo... etc. 

BTW, to those organizing cat ear booths...  if you want more people involved with making cat ears next year we really need people who know how to make cat ears before con, so maybe setting up some training sessions for those interested would be good.  I know you guys were short staffed and I would have sent more people your way if anyone I came across even knew how to do cat ears.  Heck, I would have manned it myself if I'd had any clue of what to do with it. 

[Darkerlight]

Staff can say no to any job they aren't committed to as well, hell some of them said no to jobs they were already committed to. We're still an all volenteer staff, if the volenteers do the same work then why shouldn't they get the same votes? There are some volenteers that put in more hours than their staff conterparts.

I want to address this because it cuts to the heart of the discussion - what is the distinction between staff and volunteers? I don't think this question has been properly addressed. Staff can NOT simply say no to any job they do not want to do. The problem is that our current system leaves the enforcement of this entirely up to the department directors who have only very rarely been willing to fire a staffer. We are all volunteer staff in that we are all unpaid, but when you sign up to be staff you agree to perform all duties related to your position. Volunteers face no such agreement, they negotiate their jobs individually and they suffer no consequences if they fail to fulfill any commitment. The problem is that staff also seem to suffer no consequences either.

So how would you recommend we divide the staff and the volunteers? If we retain the same distinction, how can we better enforce it among the staff? Should someone other than the director have the power to fire a staffer? And if so, then who? It's a very difficult decision that a typical person would prefer to avoid than confront.

Just a little aside for all of this.

The reason I brought this up was NOT to create a more definitive wall between volunteer and staff, it was about breaking down the wall thats being formed and finding a more involved common ground. With both staff and volunteers life happens, stuff happens, and we need to say no sometimes, have said no, can and should say no. Staffers may not turn down duties from the department they are committed to but they can say no to duties they are not committed to especially if it interferes with their own duties. For both parties "No" has consequences but it's still our right and it still happens. If staff says no too many times they go on the red list or they get fired, if volunteers say no too many times they do too. Maybe that hasn't happened before as often as it should have but that isn't the issue here. This isn't about dividing, it's about rejoining.

Both staff and volunteer feel the strain of what happens at the con, both know what it's like, both feel unappreciated at times and used. We both pay to work at a convention we love not for a staffers discount, not for a volunteer pin, not for a discounted room. These things didn't always exist and there's no reason to believe that they always will... How much or who got what isn't as important as why. It's about both sides trying to understand and appreciate each other again.

My point is that we shouldn't be building this line but breaking it apart. We have no "runner" staff, no department to fill other departments random gaps and needs, and no under eighteener that can legally be staff, so we have volunteers. In some ways they have more freedom, in some ways they have less. We all agree that things need to change for both staff and volunteers... every year things need changing, it's part of why we have a voting body, isn't it? Take it to the next logical step.

[guspasho]

Ok, so I'm really confused as to what everyone is asking for? Should we do away with staff altogether? Should we just expect the directors to do everything in their department unless they can find a volunteer to delegate the task to? Should we do away with putting anyone's name in the con guide for their work, or any sort of system that permits us to reach each other and know who does what?

I am really confused, because that sounds like what you're asking for, and that sounds like chaos and absolutely an impossible system to run a con with.

[valliegirl]

Notes to what you've said Darkerlight... I thought pretty hard about what would happen if we either treated all staff as volunteers or treated all volunteers as staff.  The problem is there is a need for the division of duties on both sides.  The positions that are staff are those where a year round, or heavy commitment is necessary.  Take for example the Registration Manager position.  It's not only year round in the sense of sending out badges and answering to attendee inquiries about registrations, but at con you're pulling 14 hours a day easy with very little break in sight.  If I had just said, "Bye you guys, I busted my butt all year and now I'm going to opening ceremonies!"...  Forget it.  Can't happen.  But that's exactly what volunteers are allowed and should be allowed to do by the nature of the position.  If they wanted that commitment, they would have signed up to be staff (or should have at least).   And if a volunteer says no, there really isn't any sort of reprecussion.  There are quite a few people who signed up to be a volunteer but weren't available to work for us at any point.  That doesn't reflect badly on them because they get what they put into it (assuming there's benefits to give them).  And if a person doesn't put the time in they don't get the benefits for it.  Which was the point of "Honorary Staff Member Status".  I felt by the time a person reached those hours, they should have been considered having the same level of commitment to the job as those who are staff.  

Also anyone who works really hard as staff or volunteer, should be in some way compensated...  And I believe firmly still that no matter what a person's commitment is the the convention, if they're willing to bust their butts for the con, it shows they care about the con, and therefore should have a say in the directon the con moves in and who they'll be working for in the coming year.  And in that sense, I believe volunteers and staff should be equal, especially since it's the people that put in a ton of hours as a volunteer during this year that will become staff next year.  All of us should have a say in who we want to work for.  

I believe that in some ways you and I really agree but we're coming at it from different aspects.

If there was some way to just cut out the separation between staff and volunteer, I would be for it, but it would have to be done in a way that those in "staff positions" are still aware of the importance of their commitment before during and after con, and for those who would like less responsibility and more freedom during con can have that as well.  That was the point of the division to begin with, and I haven't seen yet a solution that allows someone to have it both ways.

Edited to answer gus:

Recap:
I'm not asking for chaos.  I see the point of the divisions and why they're there.  However, I think that people on both sides should be rewarded for the hard work they put in and those who are volunteers should be given similar benefits to staff depending on the amount of hours they put in.  Basically staff get their benefits from the get go for making the commitment to work hard, while volunteers earn their benefits by putting in the effort. 
This was the line I was going by when I designed the volunteer benefits.

[guspasho]

Volunteers and staff should be equal... and what then is the motivation to become staff? Where is the incentive? How is the system you advocate any different than Darkerlight's system?

[Darkerlight]

Ok, so I'm really confused as to what everyone is asking for? Should we do away with staff altogether? Should we just expect the directors to do everything in their department unless they can find a volunteer to delegate the task to? Should we do away with putting anyone's name in the con guide for their work, or any sort of system that permits us to reach each other and know who does what?

I am really confused, because that sounds like what you're asking for, and that sounds like chaos and absolutely an impossible system to run a con with.

In this thread the only thing I'm asking for is staff and volunteer to be considerate to each other and appreciate each other enough to allow them both to have an equal say in the vote. Volunteering enough time in or out of the con shows commitment, shows love for the con. They're not here to take us over and they deserve the right to decide not just on election votes but on any general staff votes, like program covers or mascots or any little or big thing that we decide is big enough or important enough for all staff to  vote on.

No, we're not equal but did you read the full paragraph or glance over it? I'm not proposing a "system" I'm proposing that we RESPECT each other and find a common ground.  We're becoming elitist, indifferent to each other and it needs to be recognized for the wall it is and stopped.

[valliegirl]

Gus, once again, let's look at the sort of benefits that staff get just right off the bat without anything more than commitment to do their jobs.
Discounted admission
Discounted hotel room
Access to special events like the parties and the staff retreat
Automatic access to at con perks like the Con Suite
Free T-shirts
Special Badges
And sometimes someone will randomly give us food.

The volunteer benefits were designed to give the volunteers some of those benefits based on the effort put in.  But they have to pay attendee price and then work up to a certain level.  I think that if a person clears the same amount of hours that is required by staff, then they should get at least the same respect that a staffer does.  They never get things like discounted admission or discounted hotel rooms, but some of the things I wanted to offer, such as increments of Kumoricash, were an effort to make up for that fact.

The point I want to make though, and have been trying to make is that I don't think voting rights is something we should make exclusive.  If a person works 70 hours as a volunteer, and they're going to sign up as staff next year, they should have a right to vote for who they want to work for. 

I'm not saying that ALL volunteers should have this, but those who bust their butts certainly should, especially since the majority of the WILL become staff in the next year, statistically. 

Also, let's put to rest a simple point right now.  The lure of benefits for volunteers DIDN'T KEEP ANYONE FROM REGISTERING AS STAFF.  I'm coming up with a list right now of all the people who registered as an attendee and still upgraded to staff before August 10th, which means we kind of owe them something back.  Plus, just look at the numbers from this year...  We had 120ish people sign up as staff and only about 30 people sign up as volunteers...  And a lot of the volunteers that worked over 20 hours for us this year have already told me that they're planning to reg as staff right away.

Volunteer benefits aren't keeping staff from registering.  If Staff are worried about their own benefits, then let's come up with something to make them feel even more appreciated.

Edited after additional thought:

Through my experience this year, I've found there is one thing that does keep people from upgrading from Volunteer to Staff...  reimbursement.  If a person pays 30 dollars for admission, and then finds out they're doing the amount of work required of staff and could have registered as staff for 10, but our policy is to not give refunds, then they're more likely to just stay a volunteer.  If you give people money back for upgrading from attendee to staff, or a Kumoricash equivalent for stuff in the vendors room, and have it all printed out ahead of time, you would have had at least 3 more staff members. 

If you do have some sort of policy for this, you might want to make it public, cause I don't know about it, and people keep asking me.

Edited for context:

When I use all caps, it's not cause I'm angry.

It's for emphasis, especially on points that I feel like I'm beating like a dead horse.

[MichaelEvans]

Volunteers and staff should be equal... and what then is the motivation to become staff? Where is the incentive? How is the system you advocate any different than Darkerlight's system?

Wasn't the issue was that some volunteers are working at levels on par with staff?  The question is then what kind of recognition path should exist for them.  Probably the easiest solution would be some way of becoming staff through volunteering, but would any staff positions exist that match the position(s) they are working.  In that case, honorary staff, would be an official position for when the level and quality of work were up to par with staff level, but the candidate failed requirements for some reason beyond their control. (IE they're still too young, Or it's too late to print a new badge, etc.)

That would answer both the incentive to become staff, and the cases where that wouldn't be possible.  It would also be important to have this path clearly spelled out, and what kind of staff positions volunteers typically graduate to.

At least, this is how I see the current issue given all of the comments in this thread.

[kylite]

alright heres my little view on things. now mind you this is from the view of a yojimbo.

now yojimbo do not do anything during the year before the con. some of them do help on street team, some of them do help with volunteer work, but for the most part we have a one a month training and call it good. then at the con we work and work....and work... I think sleep is in there somewhere but I didn't see it this year.

anywho, although we put alot of work in at the con, we don't do much outside the con but we still have voting rights.

Volunteers put in a huge amount of hours before AND during the con but are unable to vote in the meetings.

Now I understand that we don't want a mass chaos system where everyone votes but the issue here is that if you put in more then 25 hours of work you should have a right to vote for those your going to work for.

[guspasho]

Once again, let's look at the sort of benefits that staff get just right off the bat without anything more than commitment to do their jobs.
Discounted admission
Discounted hotel room
Access to special events like the parties and the staff retreat
Automatic access to at con perks like the Con Suite
Free T-shirts

But what does a commitment to do their jobs entail, Vallie? Most of these benefits are provided to staff because of what they have committed to do at con, which is work during just about the entire event. As opposed to volunteers, staff are expected to attend the con, they can't NOT attend, hence they receive discounted admission. Staff are expected to work for as many hours as we need them, which is often the whole con, hence they receive a discounted hotel room, and access to the con suite to provide for the basic needs of our hardworking staff. And as for the rest of the benefits, including Con Suite, free t-shirts (and apparently free staff t-shirts that were reserved specifically for staff, not the honorary staff), volunteers already receive those benefits. You are talking about giving staff benefits to anyone who volunteers for 20 hours at con, but staff often work 20 hours per day! You are talking about giving staff benefits to anyone who volunteers for 40 hours during a year but staff sometimes work 40 hours per week, all year!

The volunteer benefits were designed to give the volunteers some of those benefits based on the effort put in.  But they have to pay attendee price and then work up to a certain level.  I think that if a person clears the same amount of hours that is required by staff, then they should get at least the same respect that a staffer does.  They never get things like discounted admission or discounted hotel rooms, but some of the things I wanted to offer, such as increments of Kumoricash, were an effort to make up for that fact.

Staff aren't just obligated to work a minimum number of hours, they have to work as many hours as their job requires. How many times do I have to explain this point? You say that volunteers don't receive enough respect compared to staff, but once volunteers meet your minimum hour requirement you seem to saying they do not have to do anything else, whereas staff are required to work the whole con. What kind of effect does that have on the amount of respect our staff receive when they are working the whole con and the volunteers only put in a minimum number of hours to get the same thing? As a staffer for which this convention has become a full-time job, I think that system would appear utterly unfair and demoralizing to me.

Take the example to its logical extreme. Everybody gets their volunteer hours in before con. Nobody works at con, or otherwise works until they hit their minimum number of hours, then they all quit. We already have a serious problem with our staff sticking around post-con to clean up the hotel, how much of a problem on Monday or even Sunday do you think that would create? We can count on anyone who is truly responsible to stick around and help out once they have met their required hours, but when it came to cleaning up the con, with staff obligations, that still only amounted to 5-6 people. Not to mention that the responsible ones who do help out the whole time are taking on the burden of all the people who have left to have fun or go home. How respectful is your proposal to them?

The point I want to make though, and have been trying to make is that I don't think voting rights is something we should make exclusive.  If a person works 70 hours as a volunteer, and they're going to sign up as staff next year, they should have a right to vote for who they want to work for.

I'm not saying that ALL volunteers should have this, but those who bust they butts certainly should.

On the point of voting rights I must most vehemently disagree. As opposed to staff, volunteers are by definition not affiliated with the convention. They are under no obligation to adhere to the staff policies, obey the command structure, participate in planning meetings, or even work. They may perform some work, or adhere to the policies, etc, but they have not agreed to be held to that, and that is what makes staff staff, and why staff specifically, and no one else, are given the right to vote among the membership of Altonimbus Entertainment. Volunteers may bust their butts all they like, but until and unless they agree to be held to busting their butts, extending to them the right to vote would be undue them and extraordinarily unfair to those who do bust their butts.

Taken another way, the vote is not a reward. The right to vote should not be awarded to anyone who has worked a minimum number of hours and has no further obligation to contribute to the convention.

And I'll be the first to say it, there are staff who slack off, and who don't bust their butts, and who don't work during con. Those staff are not doing their jobs and they are getting undue benefits. The far more proper remedy to me would be holding those staff accountable, but not removing all accountability!

Also, let's put to rest a simple point right now.  The lure of benefits for volunteers DIDN'T KEEP ANYONE FROM REGISTERING AS STAFF.  I'm coming up with a list right now of all the people who registered as an attendee and still upgraded to staff before August 10th, which means we kind of owe them something back.  Plus, just look at the numbers from this year...  We had 120ish people sign up as staff and only about 30 people sign up as volunteers...  And a lot of the volunteers that worked over 20 hours for us this year have already told me that they're planning to reg as staff right away.

Volunteer benefits didn't keep anyone from registering as staff? Was the intent to keep them from signing up as staff? Because when I hear from staffers that they were told specifically to go "volunteer" rather than staff because the perks are better, it sounds like someone sure intended to keep them from becoming staff!

Volunteer benefits aren't keeping staff from registering.  If Staff are worried about their own benefits, then let's come up with something to make them feel even more appreciated.

I can agree with this, because right now the incredible increase in benefits has far outpaced and even exceeded the benefits we have extended to staff.

Edited after additional thought:

Through my experience this year, I've found there is one thing that does keep people from upgrading from Volunteer to Staff...  reimbursement.  If a person pays 30 dollars for admission, and then finds out they could have registered as staff for 10, but our policy is to not give refunds, then they're more likely to just stay a volunteer.  If you give people money back for upgrading from attendee to staff, or a Kumoricash equivalent for stuff in the vendors room, and have it all printed out ahead of time, you would have had at least 3 more staff members.

If you do have some sort of policy for this, you might want to make it public, cause I don't know about it, and people keep asking me.

There is an inherent problem with this, however. We do not want staff who are only interested in saving twenty bucks; we want staff who are interested in working for the convention. If you can come up with a better system that is free of complications such as you've mentioned, we would be delighted to hear it, but what you've proposed doesn't rectify the situation.

Edited for context:

When I use all caps, it's not cause I'm angry.

It's for emphasis, especially on points that I feel like I'm beating like a dead horse.

I understand your points, and I think you're mistaken on a great many of them, and I hope I'm explaining my views clearly, because I too feel like I must repeat myself. I feel passionately about not degrading the staff who already feel under appreciated and who put in long hours for love of the con, and especially about keeping votes out of the hands of unaffiliated agents who have no obligation to the con, so I'm willing to reemphasize my points for as long as it takes.

[Darkerlight]

I understand your points, and I think you're mistaken on a great many of them, and I hope I'm explaining my views clearly, because I too feel like I must repeat myself. I feel passionately about not degrading the staff who already feel under appreciated and who put in long hours for love of the con, and especially about keeping votes out of the hands of unaffiliated agents who have no obligation to the con, so I'm willing to reemphasize my points for as long as it takes.

Volunteers working over 25 hour care. Their affiliated, they're associated, they wear our badge, they love our con. They are obligated the SAME WAY we are, by love of the con and of anime. They will bear the same consequences of red and black lists as we will and have. For many of us, they're our roots. I refuse to forget how I started, where I came from, where most of us came from. We've closed the vote to public this year but that doesn't mean we have to leave them behind. They are not some joe off the street come to take us over. Ignoring them won't appreciate staff any more, if anything I won't think it an insult.

[guspasho]

Volunteers working over 25 hour care. Their affiliated, they're associated, they wear our badge, they love our con. They are obligated the SAME WAY we are, by love of the con and of anime. They will bear the same consequences of red and black lists as we will and have. For many of us, they're our roots. I refuse to forget how I started, where I came from, where most of us came from. We've closed the vote to public this year but that doesn't mean we have to leave them behind. They are not some joe off the street come to take us over. Ignoring them won't appreciate staff any more, if anything I won't think it an insult.

I will say it as many times as I need to. Volunteers are volunteers. They are not affiliated or associated as staffers are - this is inherent to the definition of their volunteer status. They may care, they may feel an association or affiliation where there technically is none, and that's great! We appreciate them and we show our appreciation to them by rewarding them well for that. And by some accounts this year we've rewarded them better than we have rewarded our staff.

[Darkerlight]

We are an all volunteer staff. ALWAYS have been. If you want to quibble over the meaning of volunteer then start there.

And ya know what, having volenteered in the past and having staffed this year. Both got more benifits but the big difference is that in the end most everything they were prosimed was denied and they STILL WORKED. They had less benefits then when I worked volunteer, that is not an improvment. They were promised more than ever yes, but it all came up short, the promises were half full to empty. We got more benifits too as staff but that wasn't denied to us. They have the right to hold us accountable in a vote.

[guspasho]

We are an all volunteer staff. ALWAYS have been. If you want to quibble over the meaning of volunteer then start there.

And ya know what, having volenteered in the past and having staffed this year. Both got more benifits but the big difference is that in the end most everything they were prosimed was denied and they STILL WORKED. They had less benefits then when I worked volunteer, that is not an improvment. They were promised more than ever yes, but it all came up short, the promises were half full to empty. We got more benifits too as staff but that wasn't denied to us. They have the right to hold us accountable in a vote.

That is simply, absolutely false. This year, for the first time ever, the volunteers got a ton of new benefits they were fully able to cash in on, and some they weren't even supposed to get. They were let in to the staff dinner and to the staff after-party, let in to con suite, free Pocky delivery, and free entry into Mini-con if they volunteered during it. And not only did they get free t-shirts for the first time, but they got free staff t-shirts - which, by the way, were supposed to be reserved exclusively for staff - but unfortunately caused a shortage of staff t-shirts for the actual staff.

The only thing they did not get was Kumoricash, because Kumoricash unfortunately fell upon Meg to handle along with the whole rest of the con. We are really sorry about the Kumoricash.

[Hawkeye]

Is there really such a problem with granting staff privileges to those volunteers who were granted honorary staff status?  Especially when the 'honorary staff' title along with benefits had been given sanction by operations (as far as I understood it).  I can understand not letting all volunteers vote, guspacho, but those who have been given honorary staff status should be allowed to, or at the very least the executive staff members should hold a vote on whether or not they have that right.  As you also said, they may not be technically a part of the con, but they deserve fair and equal treatment just as any of us do.  That means taking it up on a vote, not trying to say they can or cannot have certain benefits without a fair and just decision.

[Darkerlight]

We are an all volunteer staff. ALWAYS have been. If you want to quibble over the meaning of volunteer then start there.

And ya know what, having volenteered in the past and having staffed this year. Both got more benifits but the big difference is that in the end most everything they were prosimed was denied and they STILL WORKED. They had less benefits then when I worked volunteer, that is not an improvment. They were promised more than ever yes, but it all came up short, the promises were half full to empty. We got more benifits too as staff but that wasn't denied to us. They have the right to hold us accountable in a vote.

That is simply, absolutely false. This year, for the first time ever, the volunteers got a ton of new benefits they were fully able to cash in on, and some they weren't even supposed to get. They were let in to the staff dinner and to the staff after-party, let in to con suite, free Pocky delivery, and free entry into Mini-con if they volunteered during it. And not only did they get free t-shirts for the first time, but they got free staff t-shirts - which, by the way, were supposed to be reserved exclusively for staff - but unfortunately caused a shortage of staff t-shirts for the actual staff.

The only thing they did not get was Kumoricash, because Kumoricash unfortunately fell upon Meg to handle along with the whole rest of the con. We are really sorry about the Kumoricash.

And sorry to break that illusion but volunteers that worked very hard were aloud to -quitely so as not to offend the other voluteers- attend staff dinners before. And aloud to recover in the suite. Just because we didn't have a body of law for it doesn't mean it didn't already exist. Is wasn't for every volunteer but it was for those who worked hard, made the extra effort and were given the honor and privalige to by directors or managers with directors approval. And on tees for the past two years there were no staff tees so that benefit is new to both staff and the "honorary"... There were posters and the really hard working volunteers got those too.

[valliegirl]

But what does a commitment to do their jobs entail, Vallie?

Staff positions have various levels of commitment already put in to them.  For example, as Kylite pointed out above, Yojimbo aren't required to do a lot before con.  Some of them do, and we greatly appreciate the extra effort, but on the whole their job is mainly needed at con.

There are other positions that are full year positions.  Take the positions of Registration Manager and Volunteer Coordinator.  When I took on the Volunteer Coordinator position last November, I lost count of hours I put in within a month.  This is because I spent countless hours before, during, and after the full time job that actually pays me, answering emails from people interested in volunteering or becoming staff.

Just as a preemptive statement that I will speak further on later, I did not talk ANYONE out of becoming staff, and I take personally any implication that I did.  I actually helped, including Dawn, 15 people become staff.  There's not one person who said "I want to be staff" that I talked out of it.  I talked people into it and told them who to talk to.  As a matter of fact, most of those people I walked up to the directors and introduced them and VOUCHED for them to the directors that they were going to be working for. 

I'll digress for now.

Most of these benefits are provided to staff because of what they have committed to do at con, which is work during just about the entire event.

Not true for all positions.  There are many positions within publicity where the bulk of the work is done pre-con, and Publicity department is advertised as being a good department to work for because you can take it easier during con. 

Without naming names, I will say right now that there are some people that decided they did enough work as staff during the year that they did not feel the need to actually do a lot more at con.  I'm not their directors nor their immediate manager, so I cannot speak to the time put in before con vs work put in during con. 

Let's just say though there's quite a few staff members that got to go to panels and other things without being the person running them.  I know I sure as hell wasn't able to do that, and THAT burns me a lot more than one of my volunteers working 8 hours a day during con, compared to my 14. 

As opposed to volunteers, staff are expected to attend the con, they can't NOT attend, hence they receive discounted admission.
Staff are expected to work for as many hours as we need them, which is often the whole con, hence they receive a discounted hotel room, and access to the con suite to provide for the basic needs of our hardworking staff.

Which is fine and dandy in both cases.  I never asked for a discount for the volunteers.  I merely listed it as a staff benefit, since you asked me what kept staff from being volunteers.  The benefits of staff is my answer to you.

And as for the rest of the benefits, including Con Suite, free t-shirts (and apparently free staff t-shirts that were reserved specifically for staff, not the honorary staff), volunteers already receive those benefits.

This year, which I've already thanked you and Meg for, if not in this thread, certainly another.  If you missed that, thank you. 

However, I'd like to remind that in 2006, not only were there NO volunteer benefits, there was NO volunteer coordinator.  I will not go into that issue, cause it's another topic for another discussion.  In 2006 even staff had to pay for t-shirts, so that was not happening for volunteers that year.  And in 2005, when I actually was a volunteer under Tammy, I actually got yelled at for being in Con Suite doing work I'd been assigned.

You see, treatment of volunteers is a personal issue for me, cause I've been there, Gus.  I've been treated like crap by staff members who had no clue who I was. 

This is why I asked Brownie if I could take this job this year.  I want to make a difference for the volunteers and I want them to have a voice.

You can take my mic from me and I'll still be here with the same opinions I've had for years.

You are talking about giving staff benefits to anyone who volunteers for 20 hours at con, but staff often work 20 hours per day! You are talking about giving staff benefits to anyone who volunteers for 40 hours during a year but staff sometimes work 40 hours per week, all year!

Yes, some staff do.  I know that quite a few other people who have worked just as hard as what you describe have also told me they'd like volunteers to have benefits as well.  Funny how some of us hard working staff members don't feel like giving volunteers benefits in any way detracts from what we get.

Staff aren't just obligated to work a minimum number of hours, they have to work as many hours as their job requires. How many times do I have to explain this point? 

Maybe when a person is applying for certain position you should go through the expectation with them as there's many people that are staff that obviously don't get their responsibility, and then those in positions of management or directorship should possibly do something about it when someone is in breech. 

If you give someone an arbitrary number, like 24, it gives them a jumping off point.  It's not a random number I made up in my head.  It's a number I was told and had clarified this year.  When I was setting up this system, and I was going through the math, 20 was always the goal.  It wasn't until volunteers met the goal that people started bitching.

Like the scene in Office Space, if you want for people to do 30 hours in a weekend, then make the minimum 30.  Don't give a number like 24 and then bitch that people aren't going above and beyond. 

From there, you take your expectation of a Grunt or Mook and ask the volunteers to meet or exceed that goal.  If you don't like people just doing a bare minimum, then challenge them to do better.

You say that volunteers don't receive enough respect compared to staff, but once volunteers meet your minimum hour requirement you seem to saying they do not have to do anything else, whereas staff are required to work the whole con. What kind of effect does that have on the amount of respect our staff receive when they are working the whole con and the volunteers only put in a minimum number of hours to get the same thing? As a staffer for which this convention has become a full-time job, I think that system would appear utterly unfair and demoralizing to me.

So, where is a middle where we can meet?  You're taking it extreme one side, and apparently seem to think I'm advertising doing the "bare minimum".  Let's look at what volunteers actually did this year.  No one, and I mean no one, put in 20 hours and then said "Well, that's it.  I'm done.  I've got my twenty time to goof off."  All of the people that put in beneath 20 before con did their own thing during con.  All of the people who put in over 20 before con, continued working at the convention itself when and where they could.

Going back to my best and brightest examples, Rachael and Jaz, they both broke 40 hours before con and still did a TON of work at con.  If anyone deserves anything out of this, it's the two of them.  Jaz has been volunteering for the con for years.  Rachael, I just met this year, but did a ton of work for us during the year.  The work they did before and during con is comparable to the effort you would expect from a Grunt staff member.  Rachael lives in Eugene and couldn't make it out to every meeting, but was present at quite a few.  Jaz was at more meetings than your average staff member. 

Does the thought of giving them voting rights offend and demoralize you?  If so, how do you feel about the voting right of the staff with lesser responsibilities?  Do you want for Ops grunts and Programming Mooks to not have voting rights as well?  At what point does it end Guspasho?  At what point is someone's ranking within the con circle high enough that you would consider them equal?

It goes back to something Kri said earlier, elitism.  I don't want our voting system to be based on something like that.  You know who I want to vote in this year's election?  People who care about our convention.  And I think, whether a person signs their life away to the con or not, if they put in the effort and they prove themselves, that shows they give a damn about this con. 

Obviously you don't like my numbers.  What to you would be enough?  How much blood sweat and tears does someone have to put into this before you deem them worthy of voting?

Of course, now that I'm going through this a second time with editing, yeah I put that much time into this...  I see now that it's never enough for you.  There is no answer to that question.  Because the point is, you can challenge the idea of my system all you like.  We can raise the goal, and the volunteers can meet/exceed everytime.  But if they didn't sign their life away day one and haven't worked as tirelessly as you then you still don't consider them to have the right to vote.

Take the example to its logical extreme. Everybody gets their volunteer hours in before con. Nobody works at con, or otherwise works until they hit their minimum number of hours, then they all quit. We already have a serious problem with our staff sticking around post-con to clean up the hotel, how much of a problem on Monday or even Sunday do you think that would create? We can count on anyone who is truly responsible to stick around and help out once they have met their required hours, but when it came to cleaning up the con, with staff obligations, that still only amounted to 5-6 people. Not to mention that the responsible ones who do help out the whole time are taking on the burden of all the people who have left to have fun or go home. How respectful is your proposal to them?

Once again, this isn't some lofty thing I came up with last night while eating chocolate ice cream.  I got approval for this system in February and attempted putting it into action.  Now I failed in my end of this for various reasons, which I've explained previous and apologized for.  However, none of my failure as the volunteer coordinator was in any way the fault of those volunteering. 

Your "logical extreme" isn't.  The volunteers have already proven this.  You want to go on and on about people only doing the bare minimum, but that's not what happened.  And the fact that you thank everyone for their time, tell them how much we appreciate them, and then come here and say the truth, that you still consider them not worth the respect that you believe yourself to be worth...  well congrats, you just lost a little bit more of it from me. 

Once again, if you don't like my numbers, give me a "logical estimation" of where you believe they should be at in order for any volunteer to be a hard working individual in your eyes.

Once again, never mind.  upon further reading, asking you for numbers is still a moot point which makes me wonder why you ever went through this arguement to begin with.

On the point of voting rights I must most vehemently disagree. As opposed to staff, volunteers are by definition not affiliated with the convention. They are under no obligation to adhere to the staff policies, obey the command structure, participate in planning meetings, or even work. They may perform some work, or adhere to the policies, etc, but they have not agreed to be held to that, and that is what makes staff staff, and why staff specifically, and no one else, are given the right to vote among the membership of Altonimbus Entertainment. Volunteers may bust their butts all they like, but until and unless they agree to be held to busting their butts, extending to them the right to vote would be undue them and extraordinarily unfair to those who do bust their butts.

Thank you for explaining your opinion on this so I understand right exactly where you stand.  Apparently there are a few people, including myself, that were mistaken as to your views on this issue.  This has definitely made me more informed. 

However, if someone does 70 hours of work by choice, I don't understand why that would be "extraordinarily unfair" to allow them the right to vote side by side with a person who did 70 hours of work because they were suppossed to by the fact they signed a little sheet of paper.  I would think the fact that matters is that both people worked for the con and care about the con.  And if both will sign up to be staff the following year, where the hell is the problem?

Honestly, and I doubt this would happen because it seems like something that only the board will decide on, I would love if the staff members were able to vote on this point.  This way, it's not up to a handful of people making decisions for everyone else, but rather to the conglomerate of staff, so that the could actually say once and for all whether or not they're actually threatened by the idea of someone who worked just as hard as they did having the ability to vote for who we'll all be working for next year. 

Because, you know what, the people I hear complaining the loudest that they don't want for volunteers to have benefits are board members.  Not all board members mind you, but I can name a few.  I don't think one person in the lower conglomerate has actually come to me and said, "Yeah, Vallie volunteer benefits are the worst idea ever, I really feel unappreciated by you giving them benefits."  Actually, it's exactly the opposite.  When I was coming up with this, many members of staff came to me saying they wanted better treatment for volunteers.  They were volunteers once and they have friends that are volunteers. 

In fact, Meg came to me asking about my ideas and I told her a few times about the plan before putting it before Brownie for approval in February.

In the end, I know, now, it's not my decision.  And I also know that you probably won't ever agree with me.  But I'll be damned if I'm silent about my dissatisfaction with current policy.  It's important to me because this con is important to me.

By the way, in the past, volunteers have been allowed to vote.  In fact, many of the people now on the board of directors, appointees and elected folks alike, were once a part of elections where volunteers had a say.  I don't remember the world falling into chaos either.... other than when directors weren't doing their jobs, which is hardly the fault of volunteer votes.

Taken another way, the vote is not a reward. The right to vote should not be awarded to anyone who has worked a minimum number of hours and has no further obligation to contribute to the convention.

If it's not a reward, then what gave you all the right to take it away from people that already had it?  Once again, this hasn't always been a policy.  Volunteers have been allowed to vote in the past. 

And I'll be the first to say it, there are staff who slack off, and who don't bust their butts, and who don't work during con. Those staff are not doing their jobs and they are getting undue benefits. The far more proper remedy to me would be holding those staff accountable, but not removing all accountability!

I believe that I never said anything about taking away accountability.  In fact if you read my messages again, I was the one who stated that maybe actually enforcing things like a red list is a good idea.

Volunteer benefits didn't keep anyone from registering as staff? Was the intent to keep them from signing up as staff? Because when I hear from staffers that they were told specifically to go "volunteer" rather than staff because the perks are better, it sounds like someone sure intended to keep them from becoming staff!

And I'd like to know who said that to Dawn.  Each and every person who came to me, I explained the differences between staff commitment and volunteering and I asked which worked for them better.  Most people chose staff, and if they didn't right away, they did after spending a few hours as a volunteer.  I will note for you that Dawn started as one of my volunteers and after working with me decided to become staff.  In fact, that's what happened with the bulk of my registration staff.  The only ones that didn't, basically decided not to upgrade because they'd already paid as an attendee and didn't want to bother with the troubles of upgrading if they've already paid full cost.  Oh and the fact that we didn't lower age requirement until half the year was over didn't help either, but you got a couple upgrades because of that. 

Mostly, when it came to volunteering, there were mostly people who wanted to help with a few things during the year but didn't want any responsibilities during con.  Which is fine, because none of those people hit 20 hours, so they wouldn't be lumped in with the rest.  Were suppossed to get a few things for their time, but not things like entrance into con suite or after party. 

It was the people that wanted to be staff but had something standing in their way, like the fact they'd already paid or were too young, that were still putting in a ton of hours even after they hit the 20 hour mark.

I can agree with this, because right now the incredible increase in benefits has far outpaced and even exceeded the benefits we have extended to staff.

Forgetting for the moment that volunteers never received most of the things they were promised, here's what Honorary staff members would have received: 
Special Button hand made by me (which though I was proud of were still described as ghetto and didn't get the sort of notice by staff I had hoped for )
10 dollars of Kumoricash (never happened, for anything we were giving it as prizes for, cause we couldn't get it printed)
tickets for a raffle (never happened, but I had hoped to have some gift certificates to blockbuster or suncoast and pick 3 winners)
Kumoricon t shirt (never promised a staff shirt, only attendee shirt)
And a box of Pocky.

Let's examine this. 
Buttons.  If any staff member wants at any time a button made by me, I'll be happy to do so.
10 dollars Kumoricash.  Considering with give discount admission and rooms I don't want to hear any complain about this one ever.  10 bucks is nothing compared to what we save, and it all goes back to the con anyway so it wasn't like we were losing a ton of money.
Raffle.  If staff want a raffle, give em a raffle!  How hard is that?
Tshirt.  Staff get the special t-shirts, and suppossedly get them in the size that they order, however since everyone other than me had time to go down to the dealers room on the first day, I got one smaller than what I'd ordered. 
Box of Pocky.  It comes from Tom.  It's free.  If you want one for every staff member, have the directors make an order for every member of their staff!  He was already making Pocky delivery rounds for staff.  I got one.  Sarah got one.  Kat got one!
Con Suite privledges, con party privledges, and voting rights.  You gave us two out of three which isn't bad, and I've thanked you for a couple times now.  Voting Rights is the horse we're currently beating to death.

Seriously, what is so grand and over and beyond about what I wanted to do here?  Never said give them all staff benefits.  I never said give everything to the Volunteers for nothing.  I said, let's give them a goal.  Obviously, you don't think my goal is good enough.  And when I talked with you and Meg about it back in January, I wish you'd said something back then so I could have thought on it more. 

But you didn't.

There is an inherent problem with this, however. We do not want staff who are only interested in saving twenty bucks; we want staff who are interested in working for the convention. If you can come up with a better system that is free of complications such as you've mentioned, we would be delighted to hear it, but what you've proposed doesn't rectify the situation.

Let me explain this a different way.  You've already got people who worked for you a full year who paid full admission.  In all different departments.  You already have a benefit in place that allows for people who are staff to have a discounted admission. 

For example, Mike Andrews.  He won't bring it up, cause he's not one to complain.  He actually told me he didn't want any of the volunteer benefits to make up for the difference.  He is signed sealed delivered as staff and technically is attendee badge #2 for 2007.

This is not a matter of people trying to milk your precious system.  This is not people trying to get in cheap on first day of con. 

The complication is policy.  The problem is policy.  Policy working against the volunteers.  Policy working against the staff. 

If the policy is broken, then let's fix it.  Let's go in and say, "If Staff member x paid 30 dollars, we owe him 20 back to be paid either in cash or in Kumoricash after he signs on the line with blood and hands over his soul."

I know it's not that simple, but get the board together, get a quorum, and make some freaking amendments.

You say you want to make things better for the staff members.  You say you want to make the staff members happier.  You say you want to encourage more people to go from being volunteer to staff.

THEN DO IT.  All of you!  Quit bitching about how giving something good to the volunteers will make staff offended, and actually do something good for the staff members.

You know what makes people feel unappreciated?  Being treated like they don't matter.  Being excluded.  Being promised something and either being given something else or nothing at all.  Being promised that YOU are going to do something and be somewhere and perform a certain job and YOU never do. 

I know what it's like to be a staff member and have these this happen.  I know what it's like to be a volunteer and have these things happen. 

And you know what?  As a staff member, when I feel this way, it has nothing to do with the volunteers.  As a matter of fact, most of the time, when I feel this way as a staff member, it's because of someone in the hierarchy. 

And I know I have the power to inflict the same.  And if the course of this discussion, if I've made anyone feel small, I apologize, but please keep in mind, this is how you make the volunteers feel on a regular basis.  Some days, I've felt really good about the work I've done for this con. 

Today I feel like I've accomplished absolutely nothing in an entire year.

But I have to keep fighting for this.  Because I care about the convention.  We cannot continue to treat volunteers like second class citizens.  Without volunteers, there's no one to support staff.  Without volunteers, there's no one to take place of the staff who lose interest or burn out in 2-3 years time.  Without replacement staff, eventually con dies.

We've already had one year without a volunteer coordinator, with negative consequences.  Try it again, without any volunteers at all and see what happens.

[valliegirl]

And sorry to break that illusion but volunteers that worked very hard were aloud to -quitely so as not to offend the other voluteers- attend staff dinners before.

True:  As a Volunteer, I went to the after dinner in 2004 and in 2005
In 2006, they *tried* blocking out as many of the volunteers as they could and wound up blocking out most of the Yojimbo instead, and a few volunteers still got in...  which wasn't fair to yojimbo, but they had fun at their own party as the pictures do tell.
And in 2007, there was pizza. 

[RoamingGnome]

Knowing the next meeting is for voting in the new execs.  How hard would it be to have the staff vote on the rights for volunteers or the open body to have the right to vote?  Or at minimum voting to open the floor to discussing volunteers rights.  Currently we have some of the more outspoken on both sides speaking out on the forums.  I really think this is something that would be very constructive to be heard and worked out at the next meeting.  Expecially sense we will be voting on those who will be influencing the coarse of the con next year next month more than likely.

[valliegirl]

Knowing the next meeting is for voting in the new execs.  How hard would it be to have the staff vote on the rights for volunteers or the open body to have the right to vote?  Or at minimum voting to open the floor to discussing volunteers rights.  Currently we have some of the more outspoken on both sides speaking out on the forums.  I really think this is something that would be very constructive to be heard and worked out at the next meeting.  Expecially sense we will be voting on those who will be influencing the coarse of the con next year next month more than likely.

This is what I'd like to ask for...  the chance to let the staff officially vote on this issue.

Board members, is this issue something you'd be willing to open up to the floor?

[guspasho]

And sorry to break that illusion but volunteers that worked very hard were aloud to -quitely so as not to offend the other voluteers- attend staff dinners before. And aloud to recover in the suite. Just because we didn't have a body of law for it doesn't mean it didn't already exist. Is wasn't for every volunteer but it was for those who worked hard, made the extra effort and were given the honor and privalige to by directors or managers with directors approval. And on tees for the past two years there were no staff tees so that benefit is new to both staff and the "honorary"... There were posters and the really hard working volunteers got those too.

Those volunteers weren't allowed to attend the staff dinner or use the con suite, and weren't supposed to, they only snuck in and took advantage of the staff who did not want to confront them and tell them to leave, and who frankly have more important things to do at con than police entrance to con suite. We did have a body of law for it, we have said outright that "this is only for staff", and it was violated with impunity because normal people don't want to have to be confrontational, and those volunteers pushed those boundaries.

Those volunteers are not making the extra effort, otherwise they would be staff, and we would not be having this discussion. By offering them rights you we would be permitting them to explicitly avoid making the extra effort to obtain the benefits of being staff. You are suggesting that we should extend staff rights to those who explicitly refuse to take the extra effort.

And, as I've said before, this year we changed our policy in favor of the volunteers and explicitly provided them those benefits.

I'd like to come back around to speculation here. When we extend all the staff rights to non-staffers, what is the incentive to remain staff? Do you realize that it is the staff that carry all the critical roles and that makes this convention happen, not the volunteers, and that the special benefits we give staffers are the only things we offer them in return for their countless hours of labor? In terms of importance to the convention the staff are absolutely critical, but the volunteers are gravy. Sure, we could pare down the staff ranks by removing some questionably non-critical positions, and we should be rewarding the volunteers, (which we already do in excess,) but what should the staff get? Should they get nothing special of their own? That is what you are asking for, isn't it? Why would anyone want to bother staffing if they get no special recognition above a volunteer? Where is the incentive to put in 200 or even a thousand hours for the convention above the 20 or 40 you are saying should be required for all the staff rights? Do you expect people to continue to be complete altruists for no special recognition? And do you realize we have a serious problem this year with staff morale and this only amplifies it?

[rictheron]

If I might interject a few quick statements here.

  I agree that Volunteers deserve a hell of a lot of recognition for everything they do both before and during the convention.
  I feel it is unfair to say that staff are more important or harder working because I personally have seen staff slack off or do nothing and have seen volunteers work themselves to death.  As with all things it is an individual thing.
  I suspect that a lot of promises and agreements over benefits and rights failed to pass this year because of having to deal with everything.  This is to be expected but also should be accounted for.

  Guspasho, I might not be an executive right now but as a director for the past several years I do not feel it is necessarily appropriate for a single executive to be stating these things in the forums as such.  I understand that as part of your job this falls into your category but at the same time many of the questions are involving some of the basic bylaws of the Altonimbus corporation as well as taking on the sense of justification and job satisfaction of many of those who have worked with us for years.  Nor is it appropriate for a single staff executive to be stating what should and shouldn't be allowed for a large number of our help, and no offense intended, particularly when in a staff position which does not directly interact with those same volunteers regularly.  At the same time, is not stating that one person is working harder then another, or that one person is more devoted then another, rather too judgemental for any one person to say? At the very least. I must agree that this is something which should be taken before all of the executives for a statement if not a decision rather then being argued over in a forum.  

  At the same time, Vallie, I do not believe that a vote can be done in the next general meeting for several reasons.  First, with the exception of these forums and personal conversations, many people at the meeting might not know the issues at question and going over them would take a considerable amount of time.  Furthermore, the aforementioned bylaws must be examined first to see what they state on the case and how changes will affect the convention as a whole so that ideas can be generated.  Finally, the next meeting will be seeing a possible change of several staff positions.  The voting, as demonstrated last year, can take some time and any new staffers are going to need to be brought up to date on the current state of affairs before they can make an accurate vote as either an elected Executive or an appointed director.

  So Might I suggest, instead of using this forums to debate importance, work load, or rights of volunteers, use it to propose ideas on how to support the volunteers, encourage them, and, if people want to tackle the subject, how a fair voting system might be put in place for volunteers, or at least honorary volunteers.  A poll of people who support the various ideas, taken from staff and volunteers, might add weight to certain ideas  Then the ideas could be taken to the executives.

  My personal idea might be for this past years executives and directors to grant an honorary staff position to volunteers who turned in a certain number of verified work hours or who worked in certain areas.  I know we didn't verify hours for the most part this year so it isn't a perfect solution but on a limited basis it might be helpful and could provide a standard to work with in the following year.

[superjaz]

free t-shirts (and apparently free staff t-shirts that were reserved specifically for staff, not the honorary staff)

Let me make a point on this as a honorary staff volunteer who received a staff shrirt,  

I DIDN'T ask for a staff shirt! chris and i went by the kumoricon booth and asked the staffers runing it for our shirts, and they didn't know, and (neither did we) if we were to get staff shirts or atendee shirts. so we waited to get our shirts and later when we went by to drop of charity auction stuff, we were told then that it was decided (i dont know by who) that we were supost to get staff shirts.
If the staff shirt i received  meant another  staffer didnt received their shirt, that sucks and i feel terrible about it
I will happily turn in my shirt back at the meeting dont worry it not used yet no problem

[TomtheFanboy]

That is simply, absolutely false. This year, for the first time ever, the volunteers got a ton of new benefits they were fully able to cash in on, and some they weren't even supposed to get. They were let in to the staff dinner and to the staff after-party, let in to con suite, free Pocky delivery, and free entry into Mini-con if they volunteered during it. And not only did they get free t-shirts for the first time, but they got free staff t-shirts - which, by the way, were supposed to be reserved exclusively for staff - but unfortunately caused a shortage of staff t-shirts for the actual staff.

The only thing they did not get was Kumoricash, because Kumoricash unfortunately fell upon Meg to handle along with the whole rest of the con. We are really sorry about the Kumoricash.

OK, since Pocky Club was invoked let me just mention that we did not make any deliveries to volunteers on behalf of the convention. We made about 6 deliveries to staff on behalf of other staff. 2 for Vallie (no, not from me), 1 for Sarah, 1 for Brownie, 1 for Kri, and 1 for Brenda. The box of Pocky that Kat received was from me to her and was not meant to be on behalf of the convention.

Also, I am unclear on the issue of the staff dinner actually happening or being separate from the after-party. That is something for another argument though. This post is just meant to clarify Pocky Club's participation.

[superjaz]

regarding the mini con, volunteers got free admission, which was nice other wise we probably would not of atended because most of the time during min con the volunteers were up stairs stuffing badges, when we weren't it was because we were waiting for more letters to be printed or somthing like that, or on lunch break


on a seprate note

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZgsJxBuP9o

why  can't we be friends

[Hawkeye]

Very well said, everyone, well said indeed.  Shelton brings up several really good points.  Guspacho, it really isn't appropriate for one single higher up staff member to bring this up on the forums quite like this, this is something that should eventually be brought up to everyone.  I also agree that although a vote by the execs on whether or not honorary staff members have equal rights to full staff members would be a good thing, it may not happen right away.  You should still attend the meetings though, we need all opinions, whether or not voting is allowed.  I do think that if they want to change whether or not volunteers have that right, it should wait until next fall though, because if it gets revoked now, it can set a dangerous precedent without adequate discussion and insight into the issue.

[MichaelEvans]

I do agree on the discussion portion of Hawkeye's most recent post.  Just given the number of comments here, an actual meeting would not possibly allow for the proper time to discuss the information.  I think that pre-discussing the issue, in fact almost any issue that will be brought up at the next, or a future, meeting is an excellent use of this resource and would allow for summary position statements for and against the issue at the meeting to suffice for anyone who didn't review the in depth material archived here.

[Crystal]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

[Hawkeye]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

I believe the answer to your question Crystal is that tracking the hours is Vallie's job, and Brownie's job to verify and accept the results (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  I think this validates the right of at least having the honorary staff members be able to participate in the voting process, which is what we were aiming for, I do believe.  Thank you so much for posting this.

[COMaestro]

Okay here's my few cents, for what they're worth. I can see where Guspasho is coming from, in that the volunteer perks should not outweigh the staff perks. However, I disagree that this year the volunteer perks were better than staff's. As already mentioned, most of the stuff, like Kumoricash and raffle, fell through.

I did receive one of the staff t-shirts, like superjaz, but as she said, we didn't ASK for staff shirts, we waited to see what the word from on-high was. Admittedly I hoped for a staff shirt and was quite pleased when I received one. But, again like jaz, I don't want to deprive someone else of their hard won shirt, and am willing to give it back (I've worn it already though). However, I still want a t-shirt. And I can't see there being a large shortage of staff t-shirts, as there were only 5-6 people who made it to the honorary staff level as defined by Vallie, and I know for a fact that at least one of them received the regular attendee shirt. I'd have to look back at the plan, but I think volunteers qualified for a free shirt at 10-12 hours, so any other volunteers who qualified for a free shirt should probably only have received a regular one. If they didn't, that is not the fault of the volunteers.

I don't think any volunteers attended the staff dinner of pizza, and didn't really participate in the party either. We sat at a table and talked with some people after we came back from dinner with Vallie, who can't eat pizza (and Jaz deserved a better birthday dinner in my opinion, but I'm biased). And really, if we hadn't been with Vallie, I think we would have been turned away at the door anyway, since we weren't staff. Other than a couple rounds of DDR and (a big thank you to gus) chatting real quick with Sean and Kirk, we were exhausted and didn't participate in the party.

I think all the volunteers who reached honorary staff did take advantage of the con suite, but did not abuse that privilege. All told, I think the only real perks volunteers who were willing to put in a large number of hours got was a t-shirt and con suite access. Not to downplay any of that, but the claims of volunteers getting better perks than staff this year are just false.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

This is a really good point, but unless it's posted elsewhere, there's no definition of what the Board of Directors considers a volunteer level to qualify for voting rights. This is something that MUST be clarified and decided upon. Vallie's plan made 20 hours of volunteering an honorary staff level, which would suggest voting rights here, but if her plan was not officially approved by the Board, then this honorary staff status is meaningless. However, with the bylaws specifically saying "pre-event and during even committment" that means the 40 hours or so of pre-event hours I put in should count, along with the 10-20 hours I put in during con. That means I put in at least 50 hours, which is 6 hours more than the con is actually open and running. The only argument to this is that since I didn't sign a piece of paper saying I'm staff, I have not made a "committment" to the con. Again, this must be clarified in the bylaws, otherwise I'd have to say those who made it to honorary staff level should have a vote, because they have put in enough time to show their committment to the con.

There was a worry about there being no reason to be a staff member if the volunteer perks can eventually make someone honorary staff. That is a valid concern. I myself will never be staff, no matter the perks, because I want to be able to do what I want during the con. However, there was plenty of times this year where there was nothing going on that I was really interested in, so I'd stop by the info booth to help out, or run some messages back and forth. There was one instance where I got a message that a yojimbo in gaming needed a break, and I asked around for a free yojimbo, and Mike at registration filled in. I WOULD have been willing to, but volunteers can't watch doors because they haven't had yojimbo training.

I know there are plenty of staffers who work more hours during the year than this, and I applaud them and thank them for their efforts. Without them, the con would not happen. But at the same time, without the volunteers to support staffers, to fill in the gaps the staff have, the con wouldn't work out either. And if the staff is feeling underappreciated, then there should be some other perks for them. Use some of the same things Vallie came up with for the volunteers, like the raffle, or some other kind of rewards. Have some prizes at the staff dinner for the hardest workers or whatever category you can come up with. I'm sure some staffer can be given a small budget and come up with plenty of ideas. But don't penalize the volunteers for their hard work in order to make the staff shine more.

Anyway, I hope no one feels attacked by my comments. As Jaz wrote (I love my honey), can't we all be friends? I know this forum is mostly focused on the voting rights, but ultimately it just comes down to wanting respect. The volunteers need to respect the staff, and the staff need to respect the volunteers. We're all needed to run the con, and we're all equally ignored or treated badly by the attendees 

[valliegirl]

Those volunteers weren't allowed to attend the staff dinner or use the con suite, and weren't supposed to, they only snuck in and took advantage of the staff who did not want to confront them and tell them to leave, and who frankly have more important things to do at con than police entrance to con suite. We did have a body of law for it, we have said outright that "this is only for staff", and it was violated with impunity because normal people don't want to have to be confrontational, and those volunteers pushed those boundaries.

What year are you talking about Gus?

If you are talking about 04 and 05, you're dead wrong and I wonder what information you're basing this off of.  I was a volunteer both of those years.  I HAVE NEVER SNUCK INTO A STAFF FUNCTION.  I was invited to every single dinner I ever went to.  I can tell you specifically what happened with both dinners as well.

2004, at the Mariott, as Tom and I helped out during con and helped with close down.  We were invited to the dinner afterwards, and were told to meet up at a specific time.  We spent a bunch of time cleaning up and then went over to the stairs where we were suppossed to meet everyone, and no one was there.  After waiting around for a few minutes, we decided to go to the restaurant.  It was explained to us then that the meet up time had changed to be earlier, but no one told us.  There was one table left, which was empty and far away from everyone else.  Tom decided to leave without ordering.  I stayed but felt very segregated.  A couple people noticed and came over to talk to me...  people I didn't even really know...  and I don't even remember now who it was.  But they came over and tried to apologize for us being left behind and spent time with me.

2005, at the Double tree, I worked extremely hard all weekend long.  I showed up on Friday with setup and worked long into the evening, and then straight through the weekend.  Brownie noticed and basically told me that I wasn't a volunteer, I was staff.  And I was invited, INVITED, to go to the staff dinner at that Chinese restaurant a few blocks away.  I didn't sneak in, I walked in with everyone else and I actually got to sit with people I knew that year and had a decent time. 

2006, I was a grunt staff member, because everytime I tried to apply for something higher up in ranking I was either lost or ignored.  I actually had to sign up to be staff three times because someone kept losing record of me.  I didn't even have a badge Friday night of con.  Brownie had to have mine reprinted again at the last minute because I was apparently lost in the system again.  I worked hard at reg all day because they were desperate for ANYONE to work on reg and then ran panels at night til 2am.  I wasn't told until the very last moment that they'd decided to limit the number of spaces available at the dinner afterwards.  I found out that I was invited but Tom wasn't. 

So I requested my ticket be given to someone else.  I wanted to go.  I'd really been looking forward to it, especially with the hell I went through that year.  But if it's a choice between going to your special dinner and spending time with people I care about, I don't give a damn about a free meal. 

At the very last moment, people realized that they had extra tickets and they offered one to Tom and a few other people that had originally been snubbed and gave me mine back.  And I went, and I had a good time.  But once again, no sneaking was done.    Considering you had to have a freaking ticket, in order to be let in, sneaking couldn't have been done.

So, let's look at 2007 for a moment as a whole.  There were staff only events through out the year.  The volunteers requested I ask if they could participate, as they had interest, but I advised everyone that it was only for those who'd already signed up as staff and paid their dues.  I made this clear.

There was only one incident where someone snuck in.  It was the staff retreat.  She was snuck in by members of Programming staff she was working with.  And the only reason she wasn't staff at that particular time was because of her age.  Once the age requirement was lowered, she upgraded on the spot.  I didn't bring it up because according to other people in Programming staff, she was considered a staff member other than the fact that her age was an issue with policy. 

So if you wanted to have a beef, someone above those people in programming should have done something about it.  However their director wasn't there, and no one higher up than her did anything about it either.

And one way or another, why would it even matter?  Did she hurt anyone there?  No.  Did she infect us with volunteer cooties?  No.  Other than the fact that it was completely unfair to other volunteers who were on par with her and were still loudly excluded, there wasn't really an issue.

Those volunteers are not making the extra effort, otherwise they would be staff, and we would not be having this discussion. By offering them rights you we would be permitting them to explicitly avoid making the extra effort to obtain the benefits of being staff. You are suggesting that we should extend staff rights to those who explicitly refuse to take the extra effort.

Were you at any point a volunteer?  I'm asking this in all seriousness.   

Let me educate you on the con totem pole as your climb wasn't so difficult.  Not everyone walks into con and says "Hi I want to do this high level position" and has everyone fall at their feet.  Most people start at the bottom of the totem pole, like most any other job, and then work their way up.  A good percentage of people decide to volunteer because they're new, they know very few people on the inner circle, and want to get an idea of what working at a con is like before they jump in head first.  And then there's those that wander into a con, get bored and say "Hi!  Just put me to work." 

I did a decent amount of work in 04, of course I was the latter person stumbling in and asking for something to do since all my friends were working as well.  Maybe I wouldn't have made my goal of honorary staff, but people apparently noticed that I wanted to be helpful. 

I signed up as a volunteer in 05 because I still felt like a relative outsider.  I knew some people, but didn't think I had the kind of experience with the con to get a big position.

By 06, I thought I had enough experience to do some good, but that only goes so far if other people aren't willing to work with you, so I had to fall back on people I knew again.

This year, Brownie gave me a lot of responsibility, and I did the best I could, and worked as hard as I could year round. 

But I don't forget where I started.  And I don't forget that there's someone who's a volunteer who's trying to work their way up just as I did. 

You see, your mistake is that you assume that just because a person doesn't sign up to be staff it's because they don't care.  And unfortunately, your brain is stuck with that syntax, and it doesn't matter how many different ways I explain it to you if you don't ever reprogram.

And, as I've said before, this year we changed our policy in favor of the volunteers and explicitly provided them those benefits.

Well actually it goes more like changed policy right before 07 elections and decided take everything away from the volunteers period, and then decided to give them some benefits again...  But not voting rights.  Remember, we has topic!

I'd like to come back around to speculation here. When we extend all the staff rights to non-staffers, what is the incentive to remain staff?

I will answer your question, but with the following notation  I have never said at any point "give all volunteers all benefits awarded to staff members".  I never even said "give some volunteers all benefits awarded to staff members".  I detailed out specifically what volunteers should get according to hours they put in, and the highest level in no way compares to what I will get as a staff member if I signed up in November. 

But to answer your question directly, if everything was directly equal and the only thing seperating a staff member from a non staff member was a title and a job description, I can think of only one reason to sign up as staff...  The strong desire to want to be in that position so that you can make a difference and help the con through that position.

Which must make me the most awesome staff member ever, because frankly, I don't care about the benefits.  I don't care about titles, or the politics, or power trips, entitlements, the ladders we climb, or the view from the top.  And I certainly don't care about free pizza. 

I signed up for staff because I thought I could do something that would help the con.  Didn't really work out in 06 because I was apparently the staff member that didn't exist. 

But I tried again in 07, and I was able to at least try to change the two things that went the most wrong the previous year.  Reg and Volunteers.  The blood sweat and tears, thousands times over, were for the people who got royally screwed in 06.  And hey, all of those people are non staff. 

While benefits are nice, they're not why I do this job.  And if you give similar benefits to someone else who cares about this convention just as much as I do, then maybe that person deserves it. 

Sure, I know not everyone is half as awesome as me, and sure I know not every single person who signs up as a volunteer is going to be the hard working individual that I am and always have been for this con.  And do staff deserve awesome benefits for everything they do, sure!  And I don't mind accepting appreciation for the work I do.  I also will turn down special benefits offered to me if it means snubbing people I care about. 

This is why I didn't offer all benefits to volunteers that staff have and this is why I set a goal.  You don't like my goal, once again, throw out some other figures.  I'm interested in hearing your ideas that you have for next year.  If you win the election, you'll be the Ops director and the Volunteers will be under your heading.  And I want people to know, if you're in charge of the volunteer coordinator, exactly what you plan to do to work with that individual

Do you realize that it is the staff that carry all the critical roles and that makes this convention happen, not the volunteers, and that the special benefits we give staffers are the only things we offer them in return for their countless hours of labor?

All critical roles belong to staff.  And there is a tree of how critical a job is and what benefits are associated with such. 

For example, the board gets additional special benefits that not all staff members get.  Considering the fact that, contrary to the belief of some directors, board positions are full year jobs, you deserve special benefits for being at the top of the totem pole. 

Staff members such as managers and coordinators down to grunts all get the same benefits, but you get more out of it if you register as staff in November rather than waiting until August, such as the staff Christmas party and the staff retreat.  And it's a good thing because the most important positions, especially managers and coordinators are, or at least should be, full year jobs as well.  The hard part is making sure these jobs are adequately filled by people with a decent amount of experience, which again is the director's job. 

And then you have the volunteers, which according to my plan would be given some sort of consideration depending on amount of time put into the work they're doing, but I've never said that volunteers should get all benefits that staff get.  And if you even go by this year, it was not possible for a volunteer to get access to all of the parties and benefits that staff get because they didn't have opportunities to put in enough time much sooner than May.  And if you up the hours, they probably wouldn't have the chance to get many more hours than that before con itself, further limiting the events they can be included in. 

Voting is not the only "benefit" staff get that volunteers don't.  You have plenty of other things that you've shut the volunteers out of.  This is the only one we've been arguing for.  But with you, it's all extremes.  With you, it's all or nothing. 

And I really don't get how you can say in one arguement that Voting shouldn't be used as a benefit, but then say that if we give it to "non staff" that it means you're giving away all of the benefits staff have.  If you don't want me to think of it as a benefit, quit listing it as such. 

In terms of importance to the convention the staff are absolutely critical, but the volunteers are gravy.

Maybe to you.  Maybe your job doesn't really need a volunteer to help out.  Reg needs volunteers.  Info desk needs volunteers.  Cat Ear creation apparently needs volunteers really badly.  Video Rooms need volunteers.  Cosplay contest needs volunteers as people to help out in the green room, and as stage hands.  Even though Yojimbo is a staff only position, there was apparently a need for volunteers and I was begged for some exceptions.  Gaming needs volunteers.  Set up and Clean up always uses volunteers.  Publicity needs volunteers year round, even this weekend.  Plus the people who just do random odd jobs like running and getting me food because I can't leave the info desk because there's no one else to run it, or the people that I make sit at the info desk for 5 minutes while I go use the little girl's room for the first time in many many hours. 

Looking at numbers, we had on a pretty steady basis 30 volunteers signed up.  As soon as some upgraded, a few more signed up.  Of that approximate 30, by the end of the con, not counting people who upgraded to staff, there were 8 that put in over the goal.  If you decided to up my goal by double to say that 40 hours is what we're looking for, 5 people met/exceeded that.  If you triple it to 60 hours, you have Jaz and Rachael alone at the top. 

Of the people who I've talked to, almost everyone who has hit the 40 hour mark want to be staff next year.  And those above 60 almost definitely want to be staff for us next year. 

How many of these people *would* have been staff this year if situations were different?  IE, hadn't already paid/could have been reimbursed, were told they were too young, etc.  4

And really, these four people are the ones I'd want to give voting rights too, especially if they're going to be staff in 08. 

So no, I'm not talking 50 or 30 or even 8.  Really, I'm most focused on 4 people.  And I must be fricken insane to sit here for hours trying to stand up for 4 people.  But I do it because I care, not because I'm getting anything out of it.

But anyway, with the demand we have for volunteers, you think you'd do something to attract more of them and to keep them feeling happy and appreciated.  They're not just gravy.  They're the glue holding us together at 8 am Monday morning.

And if you did away with volunteers all together and just said, nope staff only from now on, maybe you'd get 4 people out of it, but you lose 26.
 

Sure, we could pare down the staff ranks by removing some questionably non-critical positions, and we should be rewarding the volunteers, (which we already do in excess,) but what should the staff get?

Oh please, do share with all of us what positions you would want to do away with or make volunteer only and why in detail.  I'm not even being facetious.  I really want to know.

Should they get nothing special of their own? That is what you are asking for, isn't it?  Why would anyone want to bother staffing if they get no special recognition above a volunteer?  Where is the incentive to put in 200 or even a thousand hours for the convention above the 20 or 40 you are saying should be required for all the staff rights?

I was going to take these questions individually, but then I realized you just asked me the same question over and over again. 

Once again, you take my words and take them to the farthest extreme you can.

I will state this one last time.

Staff sign up staff gets benefits.

Volunteers sign up, volunteers work, volunteers get some benefits depending on amount of hours they work.

Staff benefits still > volunteer benefits.

I've listed what staff get and I've listed what volunteers get.  Scroll up.  One is not equal to the other, and Volunteer benefits do not meet or exceed staff benefits.  And they certainly don't get benefits without putting in time.

I know you don't like it, and that's why you continue over and over to completely not read what I'm telling you.  I'm really done with explaining it. 

Do you expect people to continue to be complete altruists for no special recognition?

Heh, this one I will answer.

No, I don't expect that of others, but apparently you do expect that of others.  You expect for the volunteers to give up their time to the con, and no matter how many hours they put in, it's not enough for you to give them respect.

And do you realize we have a serious problem this year with staff morale and this only amplifies it?

You are half right.  We have a very serious problem this year with staff morale.  But let's put that blame where it belongs.

It's not the fault of volunteers having benefits. 

I'll tell you what lowers my morale.

Being completely ignored by certain individuals on a regular basis.
Not having emails returned by people I need information from asap.
Not having access to the materials and equipment I need to adequately do my job.
Being promised one thing and being delivered something totally worse.
Being "rewarded" with something that causes me to be violently ill.
Having people I care about be upset because they're not getting the recognition they deserve.
Being talked down to by someone when all I did was ask him a simple question.
Hypocrisy
Asking for something by a certain deadline, and not getting what I request.
Especially when not getting it by the deadline makes it impossible to do my job.
Being given specific instruction of what to do and what not to do to find out later it doesn't matter.
Having someone commit to a job they'll be doing and have them back out
Especially if that means I have to take their place
Not being able to actually enjoy something that I've worked on.
Having important documentation thrown away.
Being asked the same damn thing over and over and over.
Being asked the same damn thing over and over by multiple people.
Not getting answers to questions I have
Getting yelled at for doing my job.
Being in physical pain or being physically ill due to exhaustion
Working overtime at a job for weeks before the con, killing myself over a weekend for a convention, and then going right back to doing over time for the next two weeks after.
Not having time to even talk to my Mother over the phone for the better part of a month because of how hard I'm working.
Not being able to see my fiance for more than five minutes at a time during an entire weekend
Having someone insist that basically I never deserved any of the benefits I received my first 2-3 years of working with this con.

Can the con fix all these problems by fixing policy?  No.  Is there any benefit in the world that would make my issues disappear, or even make up for them?  No. 

Does the fact that I want to give volunteers benefits make any of these worse?  No

In fact, there's a few that probably would be fixed by that.  But that's because I get personally involved with people and get to know these people.  These people were my job for con, or at least they were half of it. 

And if I told you that not a damn thing that you did mattered, I hope you can relate to what that feels like.

[valliegirl]

Check out the bylaws on this topic.

"B. Levels of Membership
There shall be two levels of membership based upon the roles that a member wishes to take in the organization.
I. Voting Members – Voting members shall be members that are willing to volunteer time to staff the events of the organization at a level determined by the Board of Directors.  This involves both a pre-event, and during-event commitment.  A Voting Member who does not meet the volunteer requirements of the organization or does not pay dues as required shall be terminated and shall not be entitled to vote at membership meetings.
II. Non-Voting Members – Non-Voting shall be all other members that wish to a support the organization and show their support organization by attending events sponsored by the organization and paying dues as required."

There is no "volunteer" level of membership. There is only voting and non-voting. The distinction between them is whether a member has met the volunteer requirements of a voting member.

That means it doesn't matter if you are designated "staff" or "volunteer". If you met that volunteer commitment, then you ARE a voting member. If you have not met that commitment then you ARE NOT a voting member.

By designating a member "honory staff", the Powers That Be are basicly acknowledging that that member has met their volunteer committment, but has been denied their right to vote. That goes against both the verbiage and the spirit & intent of the bylaws. 

Who tracks the volunteer commitments of the staff and verifies they have met the requirements that empower them to vote?

I believe the answer to your question Crystal is that tracking the hours is Vallie's job, and Brownie's job to verify and accept the results (please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).  I think this validates the right of at least having the honorary staff members be able to participate in the voting process, which is what we were aiming for, I do believe.  Thank you so much for posting this.

The verbage used says that refers to the time commitment part of this issue is the only thing that I can see still makes a "Volunteer" not a "voting member" as volunteers have no time commitment at all.  However, there's no in between here.  Non voting members are just attendees by this definition.  Which leaves volunteers undefined.

Which means, the board should vote on amending it anyway in order to have volunteers adequately defined  within the voting section of the by laws.

Which means, a decision should be made.

Also, to make clear, the board never voted on my volunteer incentive plan.  I was told that all I had to do was give it to Brownie for approval as she was my director.  However, I was told later by Staze that it wasn't Brownie's decision, it was the board's, which goes against the chain of command as had been drilled into our heads...

Which was about where I threw my hands in the air in May.

[valliegirl]

  At the same time, Vallie, I do not believe that a vote can be done in the next general meeting for several reasons.  First, with the exception of these forums and personal conversations, many people at the meeting might not know the issues at question and going over them would take a considerable amount of time.  Furthermore, the aforementioned bylaws must be examined first to see what they state on the case and how changes will affect the convention as a whole so that ideas can be generated.  Finally, the next meeting will be seeing a possible change of several staff positions.  The voting, as demonstrated last year, can take some time and any new staffers are going to need to be brought up to date on the current state of affairs before they can make an accurate vote as either an elected Executive or an appointed director.

  So Might I suggest, instead of using this forums to debate importance, work load, or rights of volunteers, use it to propose ideas on how to support the volunteers, encourage them, and, if people want to tackle the subject, how a fair voting system might be put in place for volunteers, or at least honorary volunteers.  A poll of people who support the various ideas, taken from staff and volunteers, might add weight to certain ideas  Then the ideas could be taken to the executives.

  My personal idea might be for this past years executives and directors to grant an honorary staff position to volunteers who turned in a certain number of verified work hours or who worked in certain areas.  I know we didn't verify hours for the most part this year so it isn't a perfect solution but on a limited basis it might be helpful and could provide a standard to work with in the following year.

I do see your point and I appreciate your speaking to this, but the biggest issue I'm having here isn't coming up with ways to show volunteers they're appreciated, but getting the backing from the Board to allow us to actually do so.

I've made up a plan already for volunteer benefits based on hours worked.  The problem is implementation if members of the board do not approve of things I would like to offer. 

I've asked for ideas on how to adjust this only to be met with a point that the numbers really aren't want matter at all, but more that they don't want the amount of benefits I would like to offer.  And even then, beyond telling me I cannot offer voting rights, I've not received additional information on what in my plan is so grandiose that it detracts from what staff members get.

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

And as for something like a fair voting system for volunteers, we can not have that at all if the board will not allow the volunteers that right to begin with.

And that's the short version of the long long long posts.

[superjaz]

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

i really hate the fact that this has been side tracted so much over the benifit debate. I could really care less about perks. What i care about is the volunteers getting treated fairly and by fairly i dont mean a free shirt, but, just the same if some one brings you a cup of water when your thirsty, a thank you
Chris asked me if, at closing ceromonies, year round volunteers had been thanked, (instead of only the volunteers who helped with lines or the clean up) if that simple sentance from the board running closeing ceromonies, would of cleared up some of these issues and yes it would have, because instead it turned into one more count of volunteers getting snubed
which is why i care about the vote, i want to be able to have a say who handles these issues, and it makes sence for the volunteers to have a say in who incharge of them, whos is going to work on them being treated with some small measure of respect, same goes for anyone who intends to be staff

[JeffT]

Here's my tentative proposal for a long-term policy on the staff/volunteer/honorary staff issue. It's not completely thought-out, but I think it addresses the major points at issue in this thread. This is not my final opinion, and I'm open to suggestions and changes.

For 2007, the department directors were supposed to make organizational charts including position descriptions for all the positions in their department. The end visible result of this was the organizational chart posted on the web site, which is also incorporated into the outline view when you log into the web site as staff. Position descriptions were not finished by all the directors, so these were never published.

For 2008,

(1) Make it a requirement for the directors to do this, plus more: All staff positions should not only list the areas of responsibility, but add detail, and add criteria for evaluating whether these requirements have been met--both in total, and at progress points. For some positions, this could be a number of hours. More often, it will be a list of things that have to get done. It should usually incorporate timeline expectations, such as that assigned jobs can have due dates. Certain due dates might be spelled out upon hiring for that the position.

(2) For certain types of work--specifically, those that are mainly

(a) based on time commitment rather than taking on a domain of responsibility,
(b) can be done equally well in small or large amounts, and the "help" to the con is proportional to the time put in, and
(c) don't require a vast background of training

--all of these areas of work should be given a special designation. Rather than becoming automatic "staff" positions, they should fall into a new category. Call it "volunteer", but it's not exactly that. You can become full staff by doing these, but you don't just become staff by doing a little bit of one job.

Rather, the board would decide--on a cross-departmental basis--what requirements you need to fulfill to basically become a "gopher", "grunt", "cross-department mook", "honorary staff", or whatever this position would be called. This might be a minimum hour commitment. Possibly, different jobs would be weighted differently, but unless the nature of the work is extremely different, it would probably all be weighted the same. However, there might be a "variety" requirement--like, this job is less popular, so we need to require that all people holding this new "miscellaneous" staff position do at least a little of it, or at least do it if called upon to.

Shifts for this work would be scheduled in advance; not just hours counted after-the-fact. Give the staff as much discretion as possible as to their choice of position; but if they fail to make a choice, or decline to and are willing to work anywhere, or their choices are unavailable, they can be scheduled where needed. Also, allow them to specify specific shifts they would like to avoid, and we will accomodate them if possible, with the understanding that it is not a guarantee. In exceptional cases, a manager/director may grant a "guaranteed" exemption from working at a specific time if they feel the person earned it in a special way, and they have otherwise fulfilled their requirements.

You could also do any of these jobs not intending to meet the "staff" requirement--for example, if you already held a different staff position, or didn't want to become staff, but just remain a volunteer.

If the board sets the requirements for this "miscellaneous" (or whatever it would be called) staff position in terms of number of shifts or hours, then those who met those requirements prior to becoming staff--meaning while working as volunteers--should have that work count toward the requirement. This means that under this system, theoretically, there could be a point where a volunteer suddenly realizes they have done all the work needed already, and decides to sign the form, become staff, and they don't have to do any more work at all. In practice, this would be unlikely to happen, because the board would set the requirement to include at-con work, and the staff registration deadline passes prior to the con. But if the volunteer had committed to working certain shifts at con, then those commitments should count toward the requirements and the person should be eligible to join staff, prior to the deadline, based on those commitments. Of course, this is under penalty of being punished or removed from staff if the required commitments are not met when the con comes around--the same as any other staff member.

Some of the positions which are currently staff which could probably be moved to this new category are: (non-exhaustive list)

Street Team
Grunt
Mook
Gaming Staff
Reg Desk
Infodesk

Some work which is not currently accounted for by any staff position which could be moved into this new category: (again, non-exhaustive)

Promotional booth manning
Envelope stuffing
Bag stuffing
Pre-con setup
Post-con teardown

The goal of creating the lists in advance is to, as exhaustively as possible, account for work that needs to be done.

(3) For these positions, the directors, with help from their managers, should identify the needs of these positions (like amount of person-hours needed pre-con/at-con), and produce training/instructional documents so new volunteers/staff can quickly get up to speed if needed on the spot.

The advantages of such a system:

• Staff benefits are reserved for those who meet a certain bar of requirements.
• The detailed position descriptions, and criteria for evaluating staff performance, ensure that staff who receive the benefits have really earned them. Ultimately, this is under penalty of being removed from staff. If the worst happens, and it needs to be done, the director (or board) can at least know with confidence that removing the person from staff is justified because they did not meet objective requirements specified in advance.
• By accounting for all the "volunteer-style" work, we can promote to staff those volunteers who commit to performing a set minimum of this work.
• Logistics both prior to, and at-con, are greatly improved, because staff and volunteers can be quickly moved around, including through department barriers, where needed.
• Training documents also ensure the easy movement of staff and volunteers.
• Because staff and volunteers can easily move around between jobs, we lessen feelings of unfairness among staff and volunteers that certain jobs worked far harder than others at the con. If one job is fully staffed, extra staff/volunteers who were working this job can be moved to an understaffed position.
• By consistently accounting for this "volunteer-style" work, we emphasize that these jobs are things that any staff member can do, even if their position description doesn't require it.
  
• Staff and volunteers who want to know how to help the con more can easily see these list of jobs, and know where to go.
• Staff feel more confident in their work because the staff position descriptions spell out in more detail what is expected of them, and they know that other staff are being held to written standards too.

I would support a change in con policy:

Attendees (whether they have as-yet volunteered or not) who upgrade to staff by the normal staff registration deadline should get a refund to the staff rate, based on what they paid whenever they pre-registered. I have heard it argued against this that why should staff be rewarded for signing up late? That's not the point. If you had not pre-registered, then the staff rate is the same regardless of when you signed up as staff. What not refunding does is simply punish for pre-registering as an attendee. Yes, this policy change creates a slight amount of extra paperwork for the con. That's not significant and doesn't matter. The number of people who will do it is probably less than 20. In a year. If you say that then attendees or volunteers will sign up more to get the refund than to help the con, then the only logical thing to argue is to eliminate the staff discount altogether, so everybody, staff and attendee, pays a single rate to attend.

Giving the refund to those who upgrade by the normal staff deadline is a simple matter of consistency in policy and, in my opinion, just basic bookkeeping.


Another small thing that can be done to solve a practical issue involving volunteers:

If a volunteer job requires it, give the volunteer, perhaps only for the duration of their shift, an "access" badge or token, which identifies to attendees and staff that this person has the authority to do the things they are doing. Whether that be being in a space where attendees normally can't be, or telling attendees to do something.


On the subject of voting rights: Earlier in the thread, I stated that I believed that in the elections held in 2006 for the 2007 officers, only staff were allowed to vote. At least two other people stated otherwise. Let me clarify right now that my original statement was based only on personal memory, and I could not find a written record anywhere on whether voting was open to the public for this election. This does not mean such a record doesn't exist, of course. So all I can do is stand by my statement as an honest recollection of my memory, while also stating now that I might be mistaken. For what it's worth, my memory was that it was announced at elections, and only enforced on the honor system. (Again, I could be mis-remembering.)

But now, our current bylaws are clear on the matter that only staff can vote. So the question being debated in this thread is whether the honorary staff, as they exist this year, should be, or should have been, promoted to full staff. This is the only way it can be legally done in accordance with our bylaws.

For future years, I believe that my proposal for the above system mostly addresses this point. For the work that is now largely being done by volunteers, the system accounts for this and sets a known standard for attaining staff status by doing this work.

What my proposal doesn't do, is allow for those volunteers who show up at the con and work a lot of hours they never previously committed to, to become staff on the spot and vote in the elections a month later. I think this point can be open to debate, but I also think if we were to say that at-con staff upgrades are not allowed, it would not be an injustice, because on some level the con needs to draw a line and say that those interested in becoming staff have a certain deadline, set at a few weeks before the con, that they need to meet.

I am fine with volunteers who are not staff having benefits at the con, and not full staff benefits. This rewards those volunteers who show up at the con and work very hard, and also encourages them to join staff for next year, if they'd like to.

As for how to handle the situation this year? I'm really not sure, and don't have a good answer. We tried to have a clear distinction between staff and non-staff this year, and the signed policies document/registration form was the center of that. But, I understand that the honorary staff volunteers who we had were all very hardworking and dedicated. I also understand that there were people on staff who did not do as much as perhaps even the minimum requirement of honorary staff, and certainly not what some of the honorary staff volunteers actually did. So we're in a situation where we either violate our policy of having a signed policies document and only allowing people to join staff for a specific position, or we have the benefits that are given to staff and volunteers out of alignment with what they actually deserve given the work put in. I don't know how to escape that dilemma this year, which is why I'm making the above proposal to fix the problem for future years.

[Darkerlight]

I never asked for volunteers to get all of the same benefits as a staff member.  I detailed out here and in many other places the benefits I would want to offer, still to be met with an all or nothing extreme. 

i really hate the fact that this has been side tracted so much over the benifit debate. I could really care less about perks. What i care about is the volunteers getting treated fairly and by fairly i dont mean a free shirt, but, just the same if some one brings you a cup of water when your thirsty, a thank you
Chris asked me if, at closing ceromonies, year round volunteers had been thanked, (instead of only the volunteers who helped with lines or the clean up) if that simple sentance from the board running closeing ceromonies, would of cleared up some of these issues and yes it would have, because instead it turned into one more count of volunteers getting snubed
which is why i care about the vote, i want to be able to have a say who handles these issues, and it makes sence for the volunteers to have a say in who incharge of them, whos is going to work on them being treated with some small measure of respect, same goes for anyone who intends to be staff

I agree with Superjaz on this, the entire point of this thread isn't about who gets what swag or goes to what party. Its about respect, getting treated fairly, understanding eachother.

Edit: BTW Jeff, thats a pretty nice system. Thanks for taking the time to put that much thought into it.

[EcchiSpice]

A volunteer can choose when to perform hours, and at what tasks.
A staff member takes on a job title, and is expected to perform whatever hours and tasks are entailed therein, regardless of desire.

A volunteer can leave a task without retribution.
A staff member who does not perform as necessary to fulfill their position requirements may be removed from staff, denied all staff perks, and asked to pay the difference in the cost of entry to the convention.

A volunteer seems to perform admirably because they put in hours without any expectation that they will serve at all.
A staff member who performs admirably receives little recognition, because their investment is considered course of duty, even when they have performed well beyond the minimal requirement.

A volunteer is offered perks as a courtesy and show of appreciation.
A staff member earns and is entitled to a vote.

20 Hours (est.)
Amount of time needed to arrange power drops at con – done by the Exhibitors’ Manager
Average amount of time spent moderating the forums in a month – by Guspasho
Less than one shift performed during the convention - by the Programming AV Manager
Amount of meeting time needed to reallocate the relations department after the director stood down- multiple affected members of staff

All of these examples are mere fractions of time spent by staff members in the course of duty. They took on more responsibility than was necessary, and bore the burden of completion once the task was theirs. Their tasks push the scope of their abilities, take time away from their day jobs and home lives, create stress and health problems undue to an unpaid staff. The idea that any of them is less worthy of a vote than a person who could just stuff envelopes for 20 hours in a year is insulting to the dedication and hard work of the people who step up and take on a position.

At the last board meeting, I will motion to remove street team member, grunt, and mook from the official organizational charts for all future purposes. I will also motion to clean up the language in the current by laws to make it clear that only persons choosing to take on a pre-described staff position with in the official organizational charts will be afforded a vote. It only seems fair.

Meg Uhde
President of Altonimbus Entertainment

2080 hours
Conservative estimate of the time contributed this year by the Convention Chair
I will not see this further discounted.

[rictheron]

  Let me start by saying, how disappointing it is to see so many people arguing and disrespecting others in a discussion on respect and rights.  This goes towards people on both sides of this argument:  Executives, Staff, and Volunteers.  We all work to make this convention happen and we all work hard, be it before the convention, at the convention, after the convention, be it 20 hours in a year or 20 in a day.  This convention can NOT exist without both Staff AND volunteers.  No one is superfluous, everyone is important.  Are we so seperated now, so removed from the idea of us all being 'fans' working on this convention that we can only argue, that we can't just sit down, talk, and come to some agreement?  At the very least, can't we as fellows just respect one another?

[Waffles]

Everything I say may have all ready been covered but I might say it anyways.

 First off let me start by saying and correct me if I am wrong exec no one else please I was in a sense the volunteer cord  for 06, and I did a horrible job. I wasn't ready for it and I put my other staff job in front of it. Truly I am sorry to all the volunteers we scared off because we  well Ihad no plans set out for them. Valli I am sorry to you because if I had done my job right then I  would have been able to help you out with  your plans or given you some sort of idea to go by.

Now on to the climbing the totem pole.
 04 was my First con and I went as a attendee I wanted to volunteer but I didn't go with it in the right way.
 05 I Started off as an attendee and was lucky enough to become a yojimbo which is something they dont do anymore because a yojimbo needs to go through training and proves to the con he/she knows what they are doing.
06 I came back as a Staff member and a yojimbo and was asked to be the volunteer cord I failed at that task.
07 STAFF and Yojimbo Loving every moment of it.
 Truthly I help the con for one reason and one reason alone, I love you guys. This convention makes me truly happy i enjoy the time I get to spend with everyone and I am sad to leave it every year.
Now I work my ass off for a couple reason and thats because I have trouble making it to every meeting. Living in bend makes it hard to come over to Portland sales or Eugene during the winter. I have had many people get in horrible accidents during the winter and its hazardous for myself and the other GS members to travel.

Now for the voting on volunteers If a volunteer coordinator has been during their job then they have contacts for all the volunteers and maybe he/she could speak for them during the elections instead of having say another 60 people  voting who don't know the complete inside of the convention.

Also vallie on a side note where you said the volunteers helped the yojimbo yes they did but thats because as an Yojimbo you also get called to do stuff thats not in your department and we go and help everybody.

Finally about the benefits I think I went up to con suite twice, If that and i knew of staff that never went up there. Also in 06 I was lucky enough to be asked to go to the dinner  but many of my friends didn't get the invite I went but I did feel bad so I went to the yojimbo party after that and well what happened there stays there except for the Pictures ^.^ Really the thing I liked most and the only reason I liked it was it gave  a group of individuals a long time to get it was the yojimbo badge. and maybe next year we can help get the volunteers a badge of their own.


                     Oh yeah Vallie can I have a Button>?

[valliegirl]

^_^

I've more than forgiven you, Waffles, for what happened in 06, and I apologize for anything I said that might have implied that I hold fault with you for what happened that year.  I respect you stepping up and accepting the fault though.  The biggest issue I think we've got in this con is too many people trying to pull double duty (or some higher multiple above).  Sometimes, you do what you can with what you've got though.

Waffles, even though we run in different circles (like chicken, with our heads cut off, like everyone else during con), you are one of the people who has become a staple of the con and I respect you a lot and have noticed and appreciate everything you do for the con, no matter what status or job you hold.   I know that all of us involved with the con love you too. 

As for your suggestion, you're right, and it's really a good idea for me to open up my vote to the people who would have been Honorary Staff, and get a concession of who the majority would like my vote given to. 

I was planning to vote with their interest in mind, but you've got a great point as well and I will discuss it with them further in email.

On a note about what I said about volunteers helping Yojimbo, please keep in mind, I know how spread thin you guys are, especially by Monday morning at 8 am.  And I'm not saying that I don't want the volunteers to help you, and I did send as many people I could your way as I could once I was made aware of your situation...  For me though, it was more a point of Yojimbo being for multiple years now a strictly staff only position.  If we're putting in random staff members to fill your shoes, it works with policy, but if you're asking for volunteers, I have to make sure I'm covering my butt as well so that I'm not being yelled at once people find out we've got non staff acting in a Yojimbo capacity.  And in one extreme case I absolutely needed Brownie or Jess's direct approval, which ever one was lucid enough to give approval at that particular time.   

So, in closing, no hard feelings, you are awesome, and yes, when you show up at the elections, you may have one of my really lame buttons. 

It'll have to be one of the regular volunteer buttons though.  I don't have any more Honorary Staff ones.  I only made a few by May and then I quit making any more since I didn't really see the point if the title wouldn't be recognized.  Maybe if I ask nice and give her candy Jaz will give you hers.  ^_^

One last general statement, to everyone involved with this thread, I apologize for the escalation of the discussion.

I recognize that there are valid arguements and opinions on both sides.  I was hoping by expressing mine, we could have lively debate, perhaps negotiation.  Maybe if one didn't like my plan one could tell me what could have been done to make it better, other than abolish is completely.  Of course there are very strong feelings on both sides.  It happens in politics.  And then stuff got personal.  I did not mean by anything that I said to imply that staff and execs don't work hard, or to put down the effort any of us put into it.

I certainly did not mean at any point to say that Meg and Rian specifically didn't work their asses off for us.

Because they did...  Every day.  I know it for a fact.  And yes, everyone needs to be given the appreciation and respect they deserve for the job they do.

And by everyone, you know what I mean.  I'm stopping because what's done is, for the most part done.  Those in charge are going to do what they believe is in the best interest of the con.  And apparently, there's not a lot else to be said.

And whether I agree or not, you are the ones we put our faith in to make said decisions for us, and I'll hope the outcome is favorable to the entire con for the coming year.  That's basically the best I can ask for.

If anyone wishes to talk to me further about anything regarding this, please just email me privately.  I'll read responses on here, but unless specifically invoked, I'm avoiding further comment out of respect.

Also, to Jeff, as Jaz said earlier, thank you for the thought you've put into your proposal.  I think it's excellent and definitely deserves consideration for future years.

[superjaz]

p.s.

  Maybe if I ask nice and give her candy Jaz will give you hers.  ^_^

so not gonna happen

me <3  lame button <3 i tell you <3!!!!!

[MichaelEvans]

First, I think the system that Jeff proposed in reply #60 is a very excellent one.  It would even allow for the development of an automated needs clearing system where by anyone with free time and access to the Internet (we could also have this accessible in the con suite and/or info desk with and/or operations with a little planning) could check for where they could help out, or verify their current schedule.  The only communication that may be necessary would be approval for whoever is responsible for that need, but some kind of 'I'll try to help out' notice, and possible remote approval or a referral to the correct area to speak in person could work.

Second, Jeff's system really does sound fair.  Earlier I had asked what the difference between the Honorary Staff and actual Staff was.  It sounds very much like there are a small number of individuals who were willing to, and did their best to commit to, a staff level of commitment, without the paperwork to let them take on higher responsibility jobs. So...

Is there anything preventing those who have shown such a level of commitment, who also want to commit to being staff in 2008, from registering as staff for 2008 before the vote, and then being allowed to vote in the 2008 elections?  Even if there is something, this may be an important enough mistake in classification this year to warrant some kind of special dispensation to allow that to happen. (Be it late staff registration/upgrade for 2007 without any other benefits etc...)

If I continue to have free time tonight, I'll probably look over the bylaws to see if they provide an answer.

- Edited under here -

Possible reasons 'Honorary Staff' are not voting members:
Article 5.
Section A: Members must submit a written membership application in the form (why is this not A form?) approved by the Board of Directors.
Section B: Voting members must volunteer time to staff events at a level determined by the Board of Directors. (What is that level again?)
Section C: Dues, though I do believe that attendee dues are higher then staff dues...

[superjaz]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

[MichaelEvans]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

Actually, it seems to be a surprisingly small list of requirements.  I also think the only reason for a deadline on staff registration is the pre-con paperwork.  So the only thing that couldn't be changed at this juncture is how many hours were donated at con... However if you sign up for next year's con, then I personally don't see why you can't sign up now, as opposed to two months from now, and be able to vote.   It might be written down elsewhere, and it's definitely not my decision, so all I can do is reiterate: There seem to only be those three items I listed standing in the way.  Each of which could have already been met, or could be met in a few moments of work.

[superjaz]

okay i'v read and re-read this thread and i think i know what it means

i dont get a puppy do i

i would like to state here that the puppy is just that a puppy, it is not a symbol for a perk or volunteers right to vote, it is just a puppy
small furry perfurably pug or welsh corgie or weener or boston terrier, answering to the name pickles, princess pickles, mr beefy, sniffles, lina pickles, kujo, or herclelese, or momiji

[MichaelEvans]

Oh, I'm sorry.  I thought you were using a metaphor.

[RoamingGnome]

Here is Super Pug for SuperJaz

[superjaz]

aww!!!!! almost perfect, it would be if it were dressed as bat man!!!!1

[RoamingGnome]

Your wish is my command.  HERE IS BATMAN PUG!!!!!

[superjaz]

!!!!yes!!!!!!!!

yay da da bat-dog!!!!!

(chris says he's scared, i dont know why...?)

[valliegirl]

Actually, it seems to be a surprisingly small list of requirements.  I also think the only reason for a deadline on staff registration is the pre-con paperwork.  So the only thing that couldn't be changed at this juncture is how many hours were donated at con... However if you sign up for next year's con, then I personally don't see why you can't sign up now, as opposed to two months from now, and be able to vote.   It might be written down elsewhere, and it's definitely not my decision, so all I can do is reiterate: There seem to only be those three items I listed standing in the way.  Each of which could have already been met, or could be met in a few moments of work.

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

[MichaelEvans]

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

The only benefit for 2007 staff registration left in my mind is the right to vote.  Is there some reason it would be impossible to recognize someone as 2007 staff if the only thing they lack at the moment is signoff on that one form?  Obviously at this point it's too late to fulfill volunteer hours if they failed that criteria, anyone who attended the con period probably Should be considered as having paid their dues, so that one fact is really all I can see that is different.

[Hawkeye]

That's an interesting point indeed, how do we deal with that?

[MichaelEvans]

Facts recap

(My prior examination of the bylaws we are currently using)

Possible reasons 'Honorary Staff' are not voting members:
Article 5.
Section A: Members must submit a written membership application in the form (why is this not A form?) approved by the Board of Directors.
Section B: Voting members must volunteer time to staff events at a level determined by the Board of Directors. (What is that level again?)
Section C: Dues, though I do believe that attendee dues are higher then staff dues...

I'll speak to this question since no one else has...

We cannot sign new people up for staff for 2008 until after the elections.  All staff need sign off from the upcoming year's directors, and as of now, we've got nominees, but not actual directors for 2008. 

And then there's deciding whether or not the person who won the election is actually someone you *want* to be working for directly.  And beyond that, there's not a person appointed to the 2008 secretary position which is the person in charge of keeping track of all the staff members.

The only benefit for 2007 staff registration left in my mind is the right to vote.  Is there some reason it would be impossible to recognize someone as 2007 staff if the only thing they lack at the moment is signoff on that one form?  Obviously at this point it's too late to fulfill volunteer hours if they failed that criteria, anyone who attended the con period probably Should be considered as having paid their dues, so that one fact is really all I can see that is different.

Which is what should be kept in mind as further discussion occurs.  Questions not currently answered within this thread...

• Pre-Con hour requirements for anyone to qualify as staff?
• During-Con hour requirements for anyone to qualify as staff? (Might be based on department... so this question should further be within the scope of the department volunteers report to.)
• If the higher registration fee for normal con attendance counts as meeting or surpassing staff dues.
• If it is still not to late to recognize that someone probably should have been signed up as staff at an earlier point (when it was clear they'd passed beyond volunteer commitment level).

[JeffT]

I don't have time at the immediate moment to directly answer all of those questions, but keep this in mind: All staff were required to sign up for a specific position in particular. The requirements of any position are determined, ultimately, by the director of the department in which the position is located.

We had set a deadline on staff registrations as being the second-to-last general meeting. This could be changed for future years but it's not really fair to change it after the fact now, for 2007. That is not to say that the current system is completely fair--but we'd be backtracking on a stated policy if we were to sign up new people as staff now, for 2007. It's also unusual to post-promote people to staff in this manner. Keep in mind it's common at most cons to have volunteers who aren't staff.

Attendee dues did satisfy staff dues this year, even though refunds for the difference were not given. If somebody resigned as staff mid-year and then decided to attend the con, then I would think they would have to pay the difference. I don't think that ever happened, though.

[MichaelEvans]

In that case, the organizational charts show the most direct Director for volunteers being Operations.  I think that means it'd be Brownie's decision if they even could have qualified as staff or not.

Hindsight being 20/20, the most logical path should have been to encourage any volunteer who would have put in such a high level of commitment, to be assigned as Mook or Staff Preservation under Operations.

[TomtheFanboy]

In that case, the organizational charts show the most direct Director for volunteers being Operations.  I think that means it'd be Brownie's decision if they even could have qualified as staff or not.

Brownie approved these people as staff in February. In May it was declared that the board had to vote on this issue and it wasn't the decision of any one staff member; be they Manager, Director, or even Chair. The board has only had quorum (the number of members needed to vote) twice since then. Once at the minicon and again at the convention itself. Neither time did the board meet to have an actual vote. Meg has declared that the board will meet and vote on the ratified bylaws before the elections. Once they've voted the issue will be decided, forever, and that will be that.

Edit: It has been pointed out to me that the bylaws state otherwise. However only the board can put forth an amendment to the bylaws, even if they can't ratify them completely. There is other evidence that as been presented to me on this issue that I have yet to verify. None of this effects the actual issue though.

I'm probably going to lock down this thread later this week since we're not getting any new information and the other members of the board who have remained silent up until now aren't likely to post.

[valliegirl]

One final note from the person who designed the incentive plan.

The status of "Honorary Staff" was not meant to actually be equal to or interchangeable with the status of "Staff".  By hitting that 20 hour mark, the incentive provided would have given you *some* benefits provided to staff, but not all. 

When Brownie signed off in February, she was not signing off on all of the people who hit 20 hours becoming staff members.  And whether she did or not, as Tom pointed out, is besides the point now as neither she or I apparently had the approval to create such an official status.

However, I will say that something has been brought to my attention by Meg and Ryan that may help on the voting right front for those who surpassed 20 hours in 2007.  I will speak to this further once a final plan has been made.

[rictheron]

  Well then just one last note before this is closed for those who have not read the bylaws thoroughly.  The board can approve changes to the bylaws and 2/3rds majority vote of the Membership, not just the board or a quorum, can actually pass it into being (see Article 3b). and any vote of the Membership must be made public notice no less then 7 days prior then the meeting when the vote will be held (see Article 5e).  On an additional note, policy does no over ride the bylaws.  So remember, we are all part of the process.

[superjaz]

and one MORE last note from one of the volunteers who is of the "honoray staff" and randon peep who makes cookies for the meeting


peanut butter or chocolat chip? or mystery suprise?

[valliegirl]

We have a resolution for those who have reached the 20 hour goal of volunteer hours.

The date and location of the elections hasn't been announced yet, but I've been told that if those who hit 20 hours of volunteering time show up early to election, we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election.  This offer was made by the Secretary, Ryan Stasel, and you would all be technically staff under him.  If you are there, we'll have you sign on the staff reg form and you'll be staff for the purposes of voting.  This is for 2007 only, and further discussion of volunteer benefits of 2008 will be discussed further at a later time. 

Thank you all for your patience and hard work this year.  I will be updating you all via email once the date and location have officially been announced.

Again, for the record, I have the following people listed as reaching the 20 hour goal for 2007.

Rachael Kirkland
Jasmine Lady
Patrick King
Morgan Woods
Chris Sept
Chris Merritt
Derek Hayes
Wendy Gleason


Oh and Jaz, I would like chocolate chip cookies please.

[superjaz]

we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election. 

2 questions


1) this dosen't count as rgistering for staff for next year right, this is just for 07 right

2) do we have to pay 10$?

sounds like a good offer, we do plan to atend the meeting once it has a time

@vallie
as you wish

[JeffT]

Meg has declared that the board will meet and vote on the ratified bylaws before the elections. Once they've voted the issue will be decided, forever, and that will be that.

Unless this was very recent, plans have changed. The bylaws committee is not yet finished with the draft, and then we need the whole board to look it over, have a period for staff (or public) comment, and perhaps have a lawyer look it over. This won't happen before elections. There is an amendment to the bylaws we are looking at passing before (or just after) elections, but at the moment the proposed amendment only deals with a single issue: changing the requirements for board quorum, because this is an urgent issue which prevents meetings from being held where the board can vote on anything at all.

Furthermore, the bylaws might leave the issue open-ended, which means the board can set or change the issue in the future through a normal board resolution (requiring majority of a board vote).

Any board motion to change the bylaws cannot directly change the bylaws because the bylaws themselves specify how the bylaws can be changed. Although it's ambiguous right now on whether a staff vote is required or a board vote, the plan is to have a staff vote. All a motion can do is provide instructions to the bylaws committee to incorporate wording into its draft. It is then subject to board and staff review, and ratification (or rejection).

[valliegirl]

we can sign you all up as staff post con for 2007 for purposes of voting for the election. 

2 questions


1) this dosen't count as rgistering for staff for next year right, this is just for 07 right

2) do we have to pay 10$?

sounds like a good offer, we do plan to atend the meeting once it has a time

@vallie
as you wish

1)  2007 only.  This does not make you staff for 08.  Basically, it makes you staff for purposes of election, and then after the election, none of us are really staff anymore until we sign up with the newly elected director.

2)  No.  All of you have already been registered as attendees and therefore have already paid your monetary dues.