Friends of Wetlands Velvet Revolution?
There has been a very interesting series of emails bouncing around among some of our members. I am taking the liberty of posting this discussion to the blog and hope that the discussion continues and broadens. A FOWL reformation may occur as these ideas bear fruit.
I have invited those people who were included in these emails to join the blog. If you would like permission to post, contact me, ray@fowl.org. If you would just like to read and comment to what others post, you do not need any additional permission.
It began with an email from Kathleen Bradley to the OEC.
I did not bring up Friends of Wetlands when we were discussing individual groups because our situation is different than most. FOWL is run under a benevolent dictatorship of John Katko (OEC board member), who is a renowned expert on Carex species and other flora and fauna related to wetlands. He lives for the environment and he is wonderful in that respect. And he is afraid on nobody.
We have gently suggested to John over the years the benefits of becoming a 501c3, but he does not want the restrictions on our political activities that come with that IRS status. We exist on donations and memberships. We do work with other organizations such as OEC, WRLC and CMNH.
We do primarily education on wetlands- their functions, values and why they need to be protected. We lead field trips in the spring to vernal pools- open to all. We publish a FOWL Newsletter several times a year and have a website, www.fowl.org that also keeps the information out there. We also have a blog. Ray Stewart is our knowledgeable web & blog guru and John's right hand man. Ray is a high school biology teacher in Elyria.
We also lobby for wetlands with elected officials, EPA and USACE reps and against, most times, developers and others with bad reputations for damaging the environment.
Since John has retired from teaching, he does consulting, free, as far as I know, on wetlands delineation type things. He is widely respected by Jim Bissell and others. He scopes out some wonderful properties to save them from the bulldozer. He has assisted at several of the OEC Vernal Pool trainings, as has Ray.
One of our most active members, Daryl Davis, has split off and helped organize the Brooklyn Center Naturalists. I'd like them to come on board as one of our groups, if they are interested.
Memberships in FOWL are still $5.00 a year for individuals, $10 for families and $50.00 for lifetime memberships. Be sure to check out our website- you'll learn a lot. Hope to see you at our spring field trips.
Best regards,
Kathleen Bradley
Labels: reorganization
posted by Ray @ 8:52 AM
7 Comments
7 Comments:
John Katko replied:
Excellent, Kathleen! Succinct, complete, and diplomatic. Don't ever let anyone tell you you can't write.
So far as 501c3 is concerned, I mainly am concerned with the burdens associated with it.
I know we tried to do this once before, but we need to get committed and capable people such as yourself together to reorganize FOWL so that I can step aside from this "benevolent dictatorship." I would like to see the right people wrest control from me. You, Ray, Daryl, and Patricia are the immediately obvious choices, but I am Ccing this to a number of other people whom I think have various skills and resources that could make FOWL a much more successful and vital tribe than it is currently. If any of you can think of others I would welcome your choices.
There will be a general announcement about this in the upcoming newsletter.
The thing I think I feel most strongly about in stepping aside is that the mailing database be kept confidential.
Dorothy Carney replied:
If you are formalizing a list of those interested in considering
converting FOWL to a registered non-profit, count me in.
The obvious question to ask before embarking on such a commitment is:
What would a "formal FOWL" contribute to Ohio conservation that it
could not achieve as well or better by working within an existing
organization, perhaps as a special interest group/committee?
Ray replied:
It looks like the members included in this email are more than friends of wetlands, you are friends of FOWL. I have thought for some time that FOWL should be 501c3 but for the same reasons as John expresses have not pressed the issue. To make this happen a new board of directors would need to be constituted. Meetings for the purpose of managing the organization would be called for recruiting all concerned members. A new mission statement would have to be written. As Dorothy suggests, What would a 501c3 FOWL be able to do that is different? We would hope to include in this process persons with vision, expertise and enthusiasm that would carry this effort forward. Those who are active, like myself, should not be asked to take on incrementally more responsibilities. New blood, new personalities, new vitality would fashion a renewed organization. Getting some younger people involved should be a major concern since the baby boomers who have done so much for the cause will not be able to keep this up forever.
May I suggest that those who are interested in continuing this discussion contact me, ray@fowl.org, and I will enroll you in the FOWL Blog. An open discussion of this process would be an excellent way to get things moving. A google account is required to access the blog. Once you have an account, I will assign posting privileges.
Mike Johnson said:
For whatever it is worth, I sincerely believe that one of the most valuable things that FOWL does is lobby our legislators. If becoming a 501(c) would put any restraints on that one function, I would caution against it.
Becoming a 501(c) would allow FOWL to access a myriad of funding at the local, state, and federal level. But please ask yourselves what you need that money for? You CANNOT use it to lobby. Maybe you could use it for educational programming but there are already dozens, if not hundreds, of organizations serving that function. The one thing that makes FOWL unique is the pressure they put on our elected officials.
Just my 2-cents.
Alan Tomko replied:
Take it from the president of a corporation,
Fowl does not want all the paper work involved in being a non profit.
Who the heck would do it?
Not me.
I think we are way better off as is.
John Katko came back with:
Thanks, Mike; it is great to hear from you.
I very much agree that lobbying has been an important element of FOWL's raison d'etre, and that this activity should continue. Before 501c3 status is pursued it would be good to establish just to what extent that would curtail our activities in that vein.
It is my understanding that up to 15 or 20% of a 501c3's activities may be directed at lobbying without jeopardizing the non-profit status. I am also impressed with the volume of political work the OEC does. Part of the equation here is that I don't think (I could be wrong and welcome clarity on this) that involvement in pressing for regulatory sanity and reform technically constitutes lobbying, and that the chief constraint is the prohibition against endorsing candidates.
I also want to make it clear that this decision is not mine but that of this nascent steering committee, and whatever organizational instrument evolves from it. I do hope that this attempt at examination of FOWL's nature does not engender centrifugal forces that are not thoughtfully and carefully dealt with, and that end up leaving the FOWL tribe in wounded disarray. It is exciting to me that people are responding to this call in various ways, and all input has been thoughtful and constructive. If this effort continues it might be important to have a sort of central person or small group that acts as a shepherd to the process, and I think it is important that this person not be me. or centered around me. That has gone on far too long and has strangled the growth and progress of FOWL. It would be a shining thing to see some sensitive and committed people step in to leadership roles here. I think young people would be most especially welcome.
It has been a stone around FOWL's neck that my leadership has always been characterized by a strong disinclination to dedicate time and effort to the organizational needs of FOWL. I have always been dismayed by the examples of groups that spend 80% of their time and resources to support of the organization and little to its mission. But it is of course necessary to devote some effort to the care and grooming of the structure. The yearly picnics have been my feeble attempt to attend to this need, and the poor attendance for the last several years has been deeply disappointing to me. So, it is obvious that something else/more needs to be done, and I really and genuinely want to see others step up to correct these deficiencies and make FOWL into something that I was unable to realize. It is not at all true that I am demure in acknowledging my efforts and accomplishments in the formation and to-date progress of FOWl; but it is equally true that I do not abjure the many shortcomings in my efforts and approach. It would be appropriate for those presently included in this effort who do not care to be part of it notify me (or somebody!) so that they can be elided from this list. It is also vital that anyone who is not present now but who would like to be involved make her or himself known. The announcement in the next newsletter will help enable this to happen.
I am so grateful for your input, Mike. It would be very fine to learn more about what you've been up to.
Thanks
John added:
Thanks, Allen. This consideration has been among the foremost of my reluctance to apply for non-profit because, knowing how FOWL operates presently I know who would probably end up with the load. I know many people think non-profit status is a really important step for FOWL, and I readily acknowledge the benefits of being 501c3. It would make sense that if the tribe decides to pursue this that it does so with the firm dedicaton of a a person or group that would be committed to shouldering this responsibility.
I also think that Dorothy Carney's point (that FOWL consider what its role is vis a vis what it can offer as an independent, free-standing organization vs. operating as an adjunct to an already existing group) is cogent.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home