Here is a collection of completed surveys that the Structure Just-A-Group collected. Our goal was to examine different structures to see the benefits and challenges that each of those structures represents. We chose groups that considered themselves a network of different organizations working together to look at groups who may have a similar "gestation" as the GLBT Arts Consortium.

Questions for the Consortium members to consider:

  1. What are the needs for the member organizations in regards to the Consortium (e.g.:coordination and networking, promotion, capacity building)?
  2. How do we balance the growth and independence as a consortium with accountability and conflicts of intrest?
  3. What resources are member organizations willing to bring to the Consortium?

--TC & Carol


From the Sister Singers Network

How would you describe the structure of your group?
Presently, it is an amorphous membership with a steering committee that has carte blanche until challenged by the membership. I don't recommend this for an organization where substantial sums of money are involved. But for this organization, it works. Chiefly because the membership is not all that participatory.

Is your group separately incorporated?
No. SSN is NOT incorporated.

Does your group have any kind of tax-exempt status?
No. We do not even have our own E.I.D. #. The accounts were under my personal SS# because interest was piddling. Now that we have a substantial account balance [due to a successful festival], we are flying under MUSE's numbers . .. including their 501c3 status. So, technically, now, I guess the answer is YES.

Why did you choose this structure?
This structure grew out of the earlier "matrix" which, in turn, grew out of the original amorphous group structure. The matrix just didn't work after 10 years (actually it started not working well after just three or four years, although the Hub and the treasurer continued because their functions were specific); occasionally when there was a burning need, some functions functioned . . . for a brief while, like one year, our "caucuses" did. We chose the present steering committee structure because with no "action" body or mechanism, the network continues to languish and flounder and stutter. The steering committee with no restrictions permits broad, creative, stimulating work to be done without the cumbersome, costly, questionably needed action of convening the membership or "polling." I recommend it for our organization at this point in time.

What are the benefits of this structure?
See above. At some point it will probably be good for the steering committee to define itself more, so the committee itself doesn't "stutter" or hesitate. But for now this is good because the network needs creative leadership, and by having the group there is more energy and more knowledge, time, resources, etc., to accomplish whatever the group deems good to take on. Again, this is good for an amorphous group with uncertain goals (only a mission) and the environment we exist in. GALA offering competing festivals, member choruses most of whom need to focus 99% of their energy on their own well-being or survival, in some instances.

What are the challenges of this structure?
The challenge is hesitation. Are we "allowed" to do something?

How are finances handled?
We assess dues. We spend money in predictable ways, according to precedent (e.g., to put out a hard copy directory; membership update or mtg announcement mailings; meeting expenses; at one point in time we subsidized some travel expenses with a funds "set-aside"). There are no organization bylaws so money can be collected and spent any way. Again, because substantial sums had not been involved (except by festivals, and then their budgets dictated spending), this has not been a consideration. Not recommended as a way to operate for other groups as it could undermine member confidence by not having spending authorization guidelines, audits, accountability rules.


From the Safe Schools Coalition

How would you describe the structure of your group?
Hi, glad to offer what insights I can. The structure of the Safe Schools Coalition (SSC) is fairly informal. We have three co-chairs and three co-secretaries and those six people do sometimes make decisions between monthly SSC meetings, but most decisions are made by modified consensus at those monthly meetings by whomever is in attendance. Of 80+ member organizations, usually about 8 or 9 are represented there, as well as a few individual members. When really important decisions are needed the monthly meeting group does sometimes decide to poll all member orgs by email and/or phone before making a decision.

Is your group separately incorporated?
We aren't separately incorporated. We are truly a coalition in its original sense.

Does your group have any kind of tax-exempt status?
We enjoy the tax-exempt status of our fiscal sponsor, which is one of our member organizations and has 501(c)3 status.

Why did you choose this structure?
We chose the structure with the recognition that member organizations would no longer be able to donate staff time, photocopying, mailing, phone service and other resources if we became a freestanding agency of our own. As long as we are a coalition our government agency members and community partners alike can continue to donate those things.

What are the benefits of this structure?
This structure is very efficient and can accomplish a lot quickly. Individuals who couldn't do or say anything very radical in the name of their own organization or agency can speak on behalf of SSC instead, when a radical voice is needed.

What are the challenges of this structure?
The drawback is it has been hard to grow or become very professional relying this heavily on the volunteer labor and resources of member orgs.

How are finances handled?
A fiscal agent has handled our finances. At first, one agency and then later a second, provided that service as an in-kind donation. But for the last couple of years, as the demands we put on their system grew (many checks in and out each month where there once were few) we began paying 5% of our income to that agency in return for their fiscal management services. Then the agency that happened to be doing that for us downsized, so now while we are still paying them that fee to handle the annual audit, we are also contracting at an hourly rate with their former fiscal manager to handle our bookkeeping.


From the National Youth Advocacy Coalition

How would you describe the structure of your group?
We're a coalition of LGBT-youth serving organizations nationwide. Organization who support our mission and work apply for membership and pay an annual membership due.
The bulk of the work is done by staff, overseen by a board.Is your group separately incorporated?No incorporation, just a 501©3

Does your group have any kind of tax-exempt status?
Yes (501©3)

Why did you choose this structure?
Not having been here when the structure was created, I can't speak entirely on that. But I can say that it comes from the original purpose of the organization, which was to lobby on behalf of issues member organizations felt important. There have been some talks about allowing member organizations more of a say in the direct work and actions of the organization (through a voting process at annual congresses), but that's all up in the air now.

What are the benefits of this structure?
Benefits of the current structure is that we can truly say we are an umbrella organization of various groups. It also allows us to be fairly flexible in our work to do what we feel like we need, based on what we know of the member organization.

What are the challenges of this structure?
There's no transparent, democratic process for organizations to decide on the organization's work. This becomes especially apparent when staff make decisions that certain member organizations don't agree with.

How are finances handled? The staff's management team (composed to the executive director, director of development, etc.) largely handles the day-to-day work with finances, being overseen by the board.