January 2014 Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
January 2014 Strategic Planning Committee Meeting Minutes (view source)
Revision as of 00:01, 31 January 2014
, 31 January 2014no edit summary
Caylie.gnyra (talk | contribs) |
Caylie.gnyra (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
== Charitable Status == | == Charitable Status == | ||
* I believe that Doug has taken on the position of point person for this. Our business model and the place of charitable status will likely play a big role in this strategic plan. We will require input on this from staff, board members, EBC members, and volunteers, and we will also need to work closely with the advocacy committee to ensure we meet the required criteria. Furthermore, accountability into what we do on an advocacy level will need to be accounted for to maintain charitable status. We may find out that we have more capacity to advocate on behalf of cyclists in Edmonton, and we may find out that this transition will hinder current and future efforts based on limitations; we won’t know until that kind of information is tracked. | * I [Caylie] believe that Doug has taken on the position of point person for this. Our business model and the place of charitable status will likely play a big role in this strategic plan. We will require input on this from staff, board members, EBC members, and volunteers, and we will also need to work closely with the advocacy committee to ensure we meet the required criteria. Furthermore, accountability into what we do on an advocacy level will need to be accounted for to maintain charitable status. We may find out that we have more capacity to advocate on behalf of cyclists in Edmonton, and we may find out that this transition will hinder current and future efforts based on limitations; we won’t know until that kind of information is tracked. | ||
** Doug: accountability is key; only 10% of resources can be devoted to advocacy - is this hard data available from an auditor's perspective? | |||
* Sarah | ** Chris: advocacy only applies to specific things | ||
*** direct lobbying | |||
*** telling members to write councillors | |||
*** have to be specifically advocating for a '''policy''' change from the government | |||
**** going to meetings to discuss the width of bike lanes, for example, etc., isn't classified as advocacy | |||
** Caylie: can the policy and advocacy committees get together to develop a volunteer tracking policy and practice? | |||
** Sarah: we need a percentage on advocacy resources for applications | |||
*** Action Item: '''Chris''' is to get these numbers (i.e., a quantified percentage of resources); '''Sarah''', '''Doug''', and '''Matt''' to follow up | |||
*** Action Item: '''Steve''' assigned to figure this out from volunteers ('''Caylie''' to get in touch with Steve) | |||