Hello, I am mainly working on the insurance leg of this . I have found out a few things. We were originally quoted about $535 for an annual policy which covers the SPR and ourselves at our activities to a limit of $1,000,000. Then the limit went to $2,000,000. Heres the skinny; The premiums are based on the # of members so I gave a figure of 32-36. The # of venues does not affect the quote much because it applies to activities (meetings, work parties, other organized activities) It does not specifically address claims by volunteers but might depending on circumstances....Once we jump to the $2,000,000 level they require a draft of the MOU (as particular to our case). This is where the question about the Inc. ties in. I will try to address that now. Has anyone here contemplated what kind of structure this Inc. could take? This is my suggestion. I think this Inc. should come to being as a Wa.St. for- profit business. There should be a short slate of officers comprising its ownership. They should have permanent positions more or less and a means by which vacancies are filled. They should each have a fiscal stake in the Inc for the original start-up. The original stakes of these founding partners could be made up to them depending on the success of the sustainable model we have in mind to create. The purpose of the Inc. is to provide as much as possible back into the public and/or private venues it manages or enjoys access to. This includes maintenance, sponsorship, charitable works and conducting events. The SDGA would remain much in its present form, if possible, carrying on the function of the volunteer arm of the Inc. The Inc. would have the obligation to to enable, instruct and respect the volunteer arm so much as its infrastructure and purse can accommodate The Inc. would have the obligation to pay the bills it incurs and in the long run possibly have the ability to compensate the officers., seeing that this is a privately owned Inc. There are several good reasons to consider this: 1. All of the business arrangements the Inc. needs to make will be will be the responsibility of the owners. The Inc. will not be subject to a perpetual changing of its officers and make doing business and business relationships predictable and build confidence through its stability 2. The relationship with SPR and potentially other agencies will be streamlined and absent the confusion that a rotating body of officers always leads to. SPR, for one, will always know exactly who its dealing with. 3. As a business with a relationship with the Wa. St. Dept. of Revenue The privilege of conducting sales, taking in revenues and subsequently incurring expenses will be balanced by the task of filing tax returns for which some common interest is actually on the hook.. 4. The roles of the volunteers would be clearly delineated and managed by the Inc. If the Inc. doesnt do a good job of this its purpose would be lacking and subject to dismissal by by whatever entities it is on the hook to serve. And 5. It could be sold, as in, to whatever extent it is successful, someone might want to buy it and do a better job. As with most things there are risks and rewards. Bottom line, a solider structure will have a much better chance of putting a sustainable model in motion. What did you guys have in mind? Gordy
Posted on: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 17:40:19 +0000