Money: Proposal Three


Watch the webinar recording for Money & Members.

We encourage you to use the PowerPoint presented at the webinar and the Structure Modernization Discussion Guide to help facilitate conversations in your networks. 

 Money: Proposal Three

  • Incentivize chapters to be active and visible by designating a portion of rebates as “automatic funding,” and the remainder as “action funding”
  • Create a mechanism to minimize political judgment-making when action funding is requested and reported on

Posting Instructions

1. If you want to share your thoughts on a proposal (remember these are just concepts, the actual language will be developed later), write your reply in the text box bellow the words Leave Reply, and in the box “Enter your comment here…”

2. If you want to respond to a comment that another NOW member has left regarding a proposal, click the small blue link that says “Reply” underneath said comment. It is very important that you click this reply button and not start another comment so that the conversation is easily followed and clear!

3. You MUST put your full name and chapter affiliation before every comment you leave. If a comment does not have a name and chapter affiliation it will not be approved. This is to ensure that only NOW members are commenting.

4. Remember be respectful and friendly! All NOW members want to work to improve the organization and it takes collaboration and patience on our part as a grassroots organization to make sure that all of our members voices are heard – even those with whom we may disagree with.

5. Be creative and don’t be afraid to say what you think! It is vital that you share your opinions — in order to create the best proposals possible we need to know what all of the members think! This site is for YOU to have your voices heard.


2 thoughts on “Money: Proposal Three

  1. Hi Matt, elsewhere in this area, we have a list of “actions,” and a standard of three such actions per year per chapter. National NOW already decides which chapters are active and which are dormant. If we leave decisions about money up to each chapter, then can we do without a national NOW presence in Washington?

    I would prefer to see dues raised, with performance incentives for chapters that do (a) more than three actions a year; or that (b) increase membership by X%; or (c) revive a dormant chapter or revitalize dormant chapters with online technology.

    Maybe I’m so far away from the center of gravity in NOW on the East Coast that I don’t see the increasingly centralized organization you describe. Out in the red states, we need all the help we can get from larger, wealthier, more active states and the national office.

    I hope to see you in New Orleans for more constructive debate!

    Kae Chatman, Arkansas NOW


  2. Matt Shapiro, Northern NJ NOW Board Member, NOW-NJ Board Member

    This was my comment during the webinar, for those who did not see it then:

    The assumption in a number of these proposals is that dues are the property of National and rebates are something like gifts to chapters or states. When central collection of dues was agreed to a long time ago, without a by law change that should have been required for it, it’s purpose was the efficiency of the collection process, not actually taking dues money away from the chapters. The best (worst?) example of this is the proposal to split the rebates between “automatic” and “activism-based.” So if national approves of chapter activities, then it would, presumably, get full rebates. In my opinion, this is a usurpation of chapter autonomy and goes against the grassroots nature of NOW. National could decide that the automatic rebate is tiny and the “activism” rebate for Nationally approved activism is dominant. This, as well as other structural changes that have been proposed, would turn NOW into a top-down, centrally controlled, organization, rather than a grassroots organization.

    Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.