Keyboard Shortcuts
ctrl + shift + ? :
Show all keyboard shortcuts
ctrl + g :
Navigate to a group
ctrl + shift + f :
Find
ctrl + / :
Quick actions
esc to dismiss
Likes
Search
Locked Re: Caution, if your group has only 1 owner
开云体育Frances,I respectfully disagree. ?It is long past time for this ongoing problem to be resolved. The first step is to acknowledge that it IS a PROBLEM, most specifically a continuing one in desperate need of appropriate long term resolution. ? The current “options” are inadequate to protect group owners who wish to protect the continuity of their group if they die or become incapacitated. ?There is simply no way to “be sure” of those one might add as owners at present. ? We urgently need a “springing successor” option which would implement change of ownership IN THE FUTURE as unforeseen circumstance necessitates. ?It is patently imprudent to appoint one or more new Owners who instantly receive full power to replace the current serving owner AT ANY TIME irreversibly; and yet that is what is currently expected. ?There is presently NO current option that is reasonable, adequate and acceptable to all parties. ?This is illogical. I fully understand the potential liability to should such transfer not be clear and final. ?That is precisely why the necessity and associated procedures be openly discussed and debated before being acted upon as appropriate. ?Even the federal government does not so encumber management of 501(c)3 nonprofit organizations. There is simply no credible reason for group owners here to have so little say in the orderly transfer of leadership in organizations THEY ORIGINATED OR NOW OWN. ?Precisely WHO does this present “system” serve? ?Certainly NOT the existing groups, nor their members! ? Every GROUP OWNER that brought their group to was an independent and competent adult at the time they brought them here. ?Why subject such LEADERS to misplaced paternalism and repeatedly denied the right to meaningfully discuss how and when THEIR GROUPS undergo a change of management when such becomes necessary due to unforeseeable future circumstance? Andy argues that adoption of “...any kind of transfer option puts some responsibility onto??to verify that whatever information they are sent when a transfer of ownership is requested, is genuine.” ?Again, I respectfully disagree. ? Currently neither has nor accepts any responsibility whatsoever when a group ceases to exist due to a lack of management succession. ?Whatever management succession procedure is adopted should require existing group ownership to provide such transfer of ownership notification as is required to reasonably and with certainty accomplish the purpose intended and to accept sole responsibility for fidelity in such agreed process. ? Over the years banks have worked out how to transfer ownership of safe deposit boxes, accounts, etc. as necessary. ?The same procedure/language should assure here that the cost of litigation over “false information” in such transfer would remain with the individual group…not exactly a “deep pocket” in the legal sense. ? I fail to see how any “new trails” would be blazed here so long as each such process/form required all signing parties to accept such responsibility and fully absolve of same. ?If there be legal expense involved if the drafting and adoption of same, my groups would be quite willing to pay our reasonable proportion as calculated by in order to purchase such peace of mind. The current manner in which GMF “moderation” acts to stifle free and active discussion of such legitimate issues has the predictable result of perpetuating the indefinite continuation of practices clearly inadequate by any reasonable definition, unreasonable and presumptively oppressive to men and women presumably possessing all right(s) of free association in these United States. ?I, for one, would like to see this reality change. Sincerely, William R. Bayne Owner - two “free” groups —?
|
to navigate to use esc to dismiss