Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007
\nFrom: Michele Wheeler
\nSubject: [volmonitor] Advocacy Rules of engagement<\/p>\n
Hi there folks,<\/p>\n
Our organization has traditionally steered clear of an advocacy role as we’ve been building relationships with our largely rural residents. But we are now revisiting this stance.<\/p>\n
Do any of you have a set of guidelines, criteria or a written\/generally understood policy for when, how, what issues with respect to advocacy in your organization?<\/p>\n
Thanks,
\nMichele<\/p>\n
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:56:45 -0400 (EDT)
\nFrom: F5creeks@aol.com
\nSubject: Re: [volmonitor] Advocacy Rules of engagement<\/p>\n
Friends of Five Creeks, an 11-year-old group that does mostly hands-on restoration, requires that advocacy be directly related to “our” watersheds, consensus of our board (or members at a meeting, but this time never works out) before taking controversial stands, and approval of letters or public statements if time allows — otherwise prompt notice to the board. Also, only one spokesperson\/letter writer unless delegated. None of “directly related,” “controversial” or “consensus” is defined in our bylaws, but this has worked well for us in keeping our organization harmonious and allowing us to take stands on important issues, including broad ones, without veering too far off course or getting distracted.<\/p>\n
Susan Schwartz, president
\nFriends of Five Creeks<\/p>\n
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:40:05 -0400
\nFrom: Nancy Hadley <\/p>\n
What type of organization do you have? Is it private, state, what?<\/p>\n