It looks like I've gotten as much feedback on the bylaws as I'm going to get. It seems as though everyone agrees on the first page and a half that refers to the administration of the fund, the account manager, the monthly statement, etc. Dad made two good points (among others...I really enjoyed hearing Dad's perspective) that I will attempt to add to the bylaws (pending your agreement):
- The administrators should "seek out" opportunities to allow the fund to financially help others. There should be no restriction on the administrator(s) as they seek out families that may need help.
- Help can be requested of the fund by proxy. For example, if Dad knows Jen and I are struggling with some bills but are too proud to ask for help, he may approach the fund and ask the administrator(s) to approach the family in need with the offer of assistance.
I liked both those suggestions. Please provide differing ideas if you have any.
Now, the part where a lot of confusion and disagreement comes in is the personal loan section. To me, it seems as though there are two schools of thought here:
- No personal loans should exist because we should be providing help to anyone in the family with absolutely no strings attached.
- Personal loans should exist because the fund can't yet financially afford to be liberal with its distributions.
I'd love to be able to say #1 is the way to go, but I'm viewing this in the immediate time frame and acknowledge that the fund can't disburse money to help in non-emergency situations without being refunded. The fund won't be able to provide the liberal disbursement of money needed for #1 to be the case for years. It would be great for the fund to help with missions and other important needs in a family and it would be great if that were to happen with no strings attached. But for now, the fund can't afford it. That's why the personal loan with repayment was suggested. Even the Church, an entity that can afford it, asks Bishops to give those seeking assistance opportunities to work or provide service in return for the Church's help.
Having said that, Chelsey suggested that the repayment section be much less stringent and I think that's probably a good idea, too.
There is no right or wrong way to administer the fund, so let's figure out a compromise so we can realize progress, not victory. Please provide timely feedback.
3 comments:
I like these suggestions. I had to laugh when I realized that I missed your deadline Jess! You and I were even discussing my option to procrastinate emailing you! I'm an idiot. Yes, I do think the repayment should be a little less severe. I like the rest of the input so far from dad too.
This is a test.
The loan repayment portion will be determined by the borrower. If I approach the fund for a $200 loan, I will also present my plan on when I anticipate being able to repay that loan. The administrators will simply act as reminders, not enforcers.
Post a Comment