community ensemble organization

[Michael Bush]

My best experience has been with a self-perpetuating board of 6 that sees to the financial well-being of the organization, chooses a director when necessary, and gives the director almost complete autonomy about musical decisions. That band has overcome two existential crises in the six years of its existence that would have killed a less well organized band. Now it is going from strength to strength.

Now I'm in a band that is the personal project of the director and he decides everything. No board, no nothing. It works fine because he's good and because he started it and everyone knew that's what they were signing up for. I do wonder whether and how the band will survive when he can no longer do it.

[hup_d_dup]

This is the system I believe works best:

Board of directors elected by band members. Band members are qualified to vote by having attended a certain percentage of past rehearsals and concerts.

Officers (President, Treasurer, etc.) are elected from within the board.

The Conductor/Musical Director is accountable to the board.

There are many reasons that open discussions are inadvisable. They take away from rehearsal time, they are not condusive to discussion of sensitive matters, they are not good forums to define specific policies, etc. etc. They should be avoided (for policy matters) except as necessary in time of crisis.

In any group of people there will be a small number who do most or all the work. It is best to find these people through the election process and let them do their jobs by giving them the authority to do so.

Hup

[ghmerrill]

In many cases, such community organizations are organized as tax-exempt non-profit 501(c) corporations and fall under whatever laws in their states govern such corporations (which are viewed by the law/courts as genuine corporations). This restricts (and imposes requirements on) what the structure of "business" organization can be, and in most cases a set of bylaws is required as well. If whoever "runs" the organization (board, officers, chummy bunch of friendly folks) does not conform to the relevant statutes and the bylaws, then a court can view this as failing to conform to the "canons of corporate governance". Yes, I know this sounds like a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo, but if you don't like it, then don't form a corporation -- keep it as a club or something (which many of these organizations seem to think they are anyway). A consequence of failing to conform to the canons of corporate governance is that the officers (or those purporting to be officers) may be held PERSONALLY liable for any actions brought against the organization. Etc.

I just spent most of the last year spending a lot of effort to help one organization I participate in get back on the track after they'd abandoned their bylaws (you just really can't do that) for years, never held board elections, and basically had no governance at all. They now have a new set of bylaws (adopted by unanimous vote of the members) that's simplified and which they can easily follow. They're going to be getting liability insurance (which they never carried), they're holding periodic board meetings open to the membership (except for those involving any confidential matters), etc. etc.

Otherwise, I prefer organizations with as minimal organization as possible and as much freedom as necessary. But in any organization that's going to do things like hold rehearsals, schedule performances, raise funds, engage a conductor, do publicity, acquire assets (music? instruments? signs? ...), etc., some degree of organization is necessary.

Here are three fundamental words to live by: "honesty", "transparency", and "responsibility". If you manage those, you've pretty well got it nailed. Hup's brief description characterizes a good way to go -- as long as you're sure you have all the legal bases covered and people aren't exposed to liabilities they may not even be aware of.

[Dan Schultz]

The community band I founded sixteen years ago has an eleven member Board of Directors... ten who are elected by The Band in three-year staggered terms plus a music director who is appointed by The Board. The Music Director being the eleventh member, serves The Board and The Band ex-oficio... meaning they have full voting rights. Since the Music Director is an appointment... they can be dismissed or quit any any time.

Our Board of directors meets once a month. Meetings are kept to a fairly strict agenda to conserve time but are open to other band members who have requested to be on the agenda.

We are a bona-fide 501(3)c and have the necessary filings to assure any donations are tax-exempt. We have formal by-laws and carry the appropriate comprehensive general liability insurance to protect our band members, board members, and the owners of venues where we rehearse and perform.

Operating a community group may appear easy on the surface but done correctly is a very BIG job.

[ghmerrill]

Operating a community group may appear easy on the surface but done correctly is a very BIG job.

Yeah, and most people in the organization have no idea how big. In my experience, the attitude of most members is "We just want to show up at rehearsals and performances and play." That's great. I'd like to do it myself. But if everyone just does that, you don't have an organization.

The large-board model that Dan describes is one employed by a lot of such groups, and it often works for them. I heavily discouraged it in our own organization because we simply wouldn't ever have managed to get that many people to serve on the board. Every group is different, and there's no single mold that will fit all of them. The way we've gone is with a minimal board (just 3) and then appointed "assistants" to serve other roles (webmaster, publicist, etc.). Our bylaws also call for a "rotating" board -- so that one member is elected each year to serve a 3-year term, and the past-president remains as an ex-officio member.

Oh ... And beware of building too much detail and breadth into your bylaws. State statutes (for corporations) may impose rather strict requirements (such as a 2/3 majority of voting members) for changing bylaws. We have gone the route of putting only the necessary basics in our bylaws (things almost certain not to change) and handling the rest with "policies" that are adopted by the board, perhaps with an associated vote of the membership -- but without any hard requirements in the bylaws about quorums and such for the policies. These include things like a membership policy (how to join, requirements, expectations, etc.) and "musicianship" policy (required skill level, etc.). That makes policies pretty easy to change as you learn more about their effects, and without a vote of the entire membership every time you want to make a minor change. You really don't want a 50-piece band having to meet as a "committee of the whole" in order to make simple decisions.

There are a number of different ways to go, but you have to understand what kind of organization you want and what the people who are members want. Some organizations are primarily musical organizations -- people come to rehearse and play. Some are primarily social organizations -- rehearsing and playing is fun, but associated social activities are important as well. Once you dig in, it's a HUGE amount of effort (and relationships and politics) to make it work.

[Donn]

Now I'm in a band that is the personal project of the director and he decides everything. No board, no nothing. It works fine because he's good and because he started it and everyone knew that's what they were signing up for. I do wonder whether and how the band will survive when he can no longer do it.

I'm in one of those. I suppose it will fold when the director doesn't want to keep doing it. It's a fun band to play in. I'm sure this arrangement goes sour as often as it works, but it can be real good.

The largest leaderless band I've been in was a dozen at its biggest. That has its merits, but not many. It can seem like a leadership vacuum to certain annoying types of people, fertile ground for band politics. Suited to smaller groups only.

[Michael Bush]

Now I'm in a band that is the personal project of the director and he decides everything. No board, no nothing. It works fine because he's good and because he started it and everyone knew that's what they were signing up for. I do wonder whether and how the band will survive when he can no longer do it.

I'm in one of those. I suppose it will fold when the director doesn't want to keep doing it. It's a fun band to play in. I'm sure this arrangement goes sour as often as it works, but it can be real good.

The largest leaderless band I've been in was a dozen at its biggest. That has its merits, but not many. It can seem like a leadership vacuum to certain annoying types of people, fertile ground for band politics. Suited to smaller groups only.

Off topic, but another interesting thing about this band that I think is also a product of who leads it: this band consistently gets the largest audience I have personally seen a volunteer community band draw: 500-700 people every concert in a town of maybe 20,000 souls. The first time I walked into the hall and saw how many chairs were set up I thought it was a mistake. Nope.

[Dan Schultz]

Now I'm in a band that is the personal project of the director and he decides everything. No board, no nothing. It works fine because he's good and because he started it and everyone knew that's what they were signing up for. I do wonder whether and how the band will survive when he can no longer do it.

I'm in one of those. I suppose it will fold when the director doesn't want to keep doing it. It's a fun band to play in. I'm sure this arrangement goes sour as often as it works, but it can be real good.

....

This is EXACTLY why you need an active board, by-laws, and some degree of organization. The game will end if the kid who owns the baseball decides to go home.

[Donn]

This is EXACTLY why you need an active board, by-laws, and some degree of organization. The game will end if the kid who owns the baseball decides to go home.

If we want to go on, we probably can. I mean, all we have is a name, some merchandise, an agreement with a place that hosts our practice for free (as far as I know anyway.) We could probably keep all that, but we could manage without it. The problem is that the kid who may leave is likely irreplaceable, and the subsequent band would be significantly less viable. It's OK, everything doesn't have to be eternal, and I'd rather the band end at its peak. A board etc. would be hideous and would add nothing we need.

This of course doesn't sound like the OP situation, at all, it's purely a tangent, since we aren't really a community band. I mean, we might look a lot like one, but we're just a band, not a "community band."

[hup_d_dup]

I belonged (until recently) to a band that made the transition from a director/founder-run organization to a board-run organization. This was done with the help of the retiring director who wanted the band to continue as a legacy.

From a musical standpoint, the band was fine before the transition, but there were a number of organizational weaknesses. The incoming board rewrote the bylaws, updated 501(c)3 compliance (which had expired!), initiated a blanket license agreement with ACB, inventoried band assets, changed to a better insurance policy, and formed a publicity committee.

It isn't reasonable to expect a single person to be responsible for all these items and stay on top of them, particularly if he/she is also the band conductor.

Hup

[ghmerrill]

Hup now raises some other issues of importance in any organization of this sort. Most people in the organization either won't know about, won't care about, or will thoroughly misunderstand issues pertaining to copyright and performance licensing. They won't understand how charging a fee (for tickets), or even explicitly requesting a donation of a certain amount, could affect the status of the organization. It's "Hey, we're a non-profit. So we can do anything."

Again, so many people who participate in these things tend to view them as "clubs" where there aren't any genuine requirements or responsibilities, and you just show up and play. It's a big part of the role of the organization's management to educate the members concerning what the organization really is -- while maintaining all the benefits that attract people to it.

[ghmerrill]

one group is thriving and very popular, the other stagnates, hasn't played anywhere since July 4. one has a "leader" that dictates, the other appears to be a "group" effort.

Scheduling events -- particularly far enough out and on a continuing basis -- is very time-consuming and burdensome. I've been doing it for about three years now and am beginning to transition out of it due to fatigue and burn-out. In many locales, you need to be prepared to schedule at least six months (and often a year) in advance, and a variety of members will be resistant to this.

i've voiced my dissatisfaction to one group and more than likely will move on after the first of the year. i'm not a very good sheep. i was in ROTC in college with dreams of a military career, but the further i got into it, the more i came to understand that i was not good soldier material because i don't follow blindly.

But that's great -- if you can lead instead of following. Often, you just need to start doing something. Ask for forgiveness rather than permission. What I really love is the people who "voice their dissatisfaction" or have "good ideas", but want someone else to do the work -- and do it to their specifications. Not saying you do this. But if you are voicing dissatisfaction without saying "And here's what I'll do to help the problem," then it's probably best if you move on and try that in some other organization. We've lost a few people over the past several years who just got too frustrated trying to get other people to follow their orders.

[Dan Schultz]

Just another side-note... being a bona-fide not-for-profit is a good thing. However....

A note of caution to any individual who attempts to organize as a 501(c)3 for personal gain and thinks they can still retain ownership of property... they cannot. If a 501(c)3 ever dissolves, the property (and finances) legally have to be transferred to another 501(c)3.

You cannot 'take the money and run'.

[ghmerrill]

You cannot 'take the money and run'.

What money?

But, yeah, this is absolutely correct. And not just the money. This pertains to all the "assets" -- like if your band bought those high-end timpani or that marimba.

[Tubaryan12]

This is the system I believe works best:

Board of directors elected by band members. Band members are qualified to vote by having attended a certain percentage of past rehearsals and concerts.

Officers (President, Treasurer, etc.) are elected from within the board.

The Conductor/Musical Director is accountable to the board.

There are many reasons that open discussions are inadvisable. They take away from rehearsal time, they are not condusive to discussion of sensitive matters, they are not good forums to define specific policies, etc. etc. They should be avoided (for policy matters) except as necessary in time of crisis.

In any group of people there will be a small number who do most or all the work. It is best to find these people through the election process and let them do their jobs by giving them the authority to do so.

Hup

The Euclid Symphony Orchestra basically functions this way as well.

[Dan Schultz]

This is the system I believe works best:

Board of directors elected by band members. Band members are qualified to vote by having attended a certain percentage of past rehearsals and concerts.

Officers (President, Treasurer, etc.) are elected from within the board.

The Conductor/Musical Director is accountable to the board.

There are many reasons that open discussions are inadvisable. They take away from rehearsal time, they are not condusive to discussion of sensitive matters, they are not good forums to define specific policies, etc. etc. They should be avoided (for policy matters) except as necessary in time of crisis.

In any group of people there will be a small number who do most or all the work. It is best to find these people through the election process and let them do their jobs by giving them the authority to do so.

Hup

The Euclid Symphony Orchestra basically functions this way as well.

Yup. This pretty much defines who The Old Dam Community Band is, too.

[bearphonium]

I play in 3 groups. The only one that is a 501(c)3 is a community concert band that has a 20 year history and has had one director in that time. We rehearse at his (now former) high school, and use their percussion equipment. There is a board, with a president and a treasurer and "interested members" who do a variety of things that fall in their area of expertise (one, an accountant, kept us out of trouble with the IRS when we let our paperwork lapse). The other two are smaller groups run by an elected council. At this point, I am the President of both these groups. One is dues/gig fee run, the other is mostly performance fee run. The director is "hired" by the council, and makes all the musical decisions for both groups. I believe that my distaste for disorganization has lead to my not-so-fond nickname as "the bossy lady" from one of these groups. The other people like me better. Even if I am bossy, and refer to our meetings as "cat herding" escapades.

[Michael Bush]

Yup. This pretty much defines who The Old Dam Community Band is, too.

Likewise the first band I referred to, Upstate Winds in South Carolina, except that we never could figure out a definition for membership that worked for us, so we organized as a corporation without members and made the board self-perpetuating.

Also, you don't need an IRS determination letter if you have gross receipts of less than $5000 a year. We never came close while I was involved. Makes all the compliance stuff much simpler.

[Dan Schultz]

.... we never could figure out a definition for membership that worked for us, so we organized as a corporation without members and made the board self-perpetuating.

Also, you don't need an IRS determination letter if you have gross receipts of less than $5000 a year. We never came close while I was involved. Makes all the compliance stuff much simpler.

Hmmmm... I would think you still need the determination letter. However... you do not need to do a formal yearly filing if you are under a certain gross threshold. It was $10,000 when we originally formed sixteen years ago and moved to $25,000. It might be $50,000 by now. We do what is called an 'E-card file' each year.

The term 'membership' can be whatever you choose to make it. However... if you ever have a serious liability issue... your insurance company (and probably attorneys) will ask you to define 'membership'. You NEVER want to ask an attorney a question like that!

Being a corporation does not fully protect your board or officers in the event they do something criminal or stupid. That being said... I would not served on any board of directors or as an officer for any organization that does not carry a good comprehensive general liability policy and have at the very least Articles of Association.

My opinion regarding not-for-profit organizations.... I think there are WAAAY too many of them and the waters gets very 'muddy' when that term is just thrown in. Colleges and universities now offer full courses in how to operate a not-for-profit. An unpaid Board of Directors plus the necessary filings is about all that's required to be a not-for-profit. There are often still monstrous 'Executive Director' salaries and such. Elizabeth Dole raked in way over a half-million a year for all the years she was director of The Red Cross.

[Michael Bush]

Hmmmm... I would think you still need the determination letter.

Maybe for the kind of public trust issues you allude to. But the form 1023 instructions definitely say on the first page that if you normally have under $5000 in annual revenue, you don't.