In another thread Patrick Williams made the following statements:

Quote:

Due to some recent discussion (nor relating to this particular thread) between the members of the Board of Governors, I’m going to jump in here. This just barely passes muster (a wonderful design idea and nicely executed, by the way) because it contains elements already discussed. However, it comes really close to new design work. Very, very close. Toes over the line, even.

Quote:

Please keep discussion here limited to the designs already submitted. I know ... I like playing the design game, too, but until such time as the Board of Governors has the time, energy and/or desire to revisit our policy we are not a design firm, even in the members area.

Please explain this position, and the reason behind it.

What constitutes "New Design?"

I don’t believe that the AHS has ever represented itself as a design firm.  Furthermore, it is entirely appropriate within the context of an open forum of an accademic society that innovations be introduced.  I simply don’t understand why this is an issue.

I am curious about the same thing.  I will hold my comments for now, but look forward to hearing from the Board about the issue.  Also, a reference to the part of the policy or rules which governs this would also be nice, because I did a little looking around and couldn’t find the part that was relevant, so I gave up.

Looking forward to hearing more!

Kyle=

(also as one who was (probably) guilty of this in my own arms design thread…)

Ah, since I am the most recent moderator who has raised this issue, I suppose it’s up to me to respond. Eric, also keep in mind that I requested that folks who wished to discuss this decision with me do it by PM, but now it’s out here and so be it.

Here is part of a message that I just sent this morning to Kyle, in response to his question about this issue (Kyle had also mentioned that he didn’t think that the members doing this in fora gave it official sanction and therefore my reply in item 4):

Quote:

Let me explain, briefly:

1) We are a 501(c)3 organization. If you go to the home page and read our charter, you’ll find out what we are organized to do (article 3, if I remember correctly). It’s the feeling of many of the older members that "running a design firm" is outside of the parameters of that article. Consistently operating outside of the scope of our charter can get us in a tough place with the IRS. Yes, it can be argued that helping each other with design falls under "education", but it’s not really being done specifically for an educational purpose.

2) There are other organizations on and off of the net whose stated purpose is to help people become armigerous. If we do the same we’re not only outside of the stated scope of our operations, we’re also directly competing with these other orgs.

 

3) Some of our members do design work for a living. There are also heraldists out there who are not members who do design work as their bread and butter. Giving it away free here may engender some rather bad feelings and our little science/art is very, very political.

 

4) Anything that happens in the fora (with the possible exception of the "off-topic" areas) carries the cartouche of having offical sanction. That’s why we have a moderation team and that’s why I stepped into the middle of the thread we’re talking about. If I had not said something (and notice that I said it as gently as possible) then by virtue of it being unsaid, it would de facto become "policy" and be sanctioned. Remember: this isn’t just an open forum to discuss heraldry, it’s a private not-for-profit organization organized under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code of the US. We have constraints put on us by the Federal gov’t as well as by our own rules.

 

5) Nobody said that we can’t help each other come up with ideas, we just can’t do it on the fora. You can, however, do it in chat or by pm or by email. But not in the fora.

 

So, that’s the brief version of why things are the way they are. And trust me, that truly is the brief version.

Eric wrote:
Quote:

Furthermore, it is entirely appropriate within the context of an open forum of an accademic society that innovations be introduced. I simply don’t understand why this is an issue.

Perhaps so. But this is not merely an open forum of an academic society. It is the primary vehicle by which this not-for-profit organization performs its stated purpose. As a moderator, I am charged to keep discussions on topic and within the scope of society operations.

Eric wrote:
Quote:

What constitutes "New Design?"

Let’s look at the thread where this all happened: Cristian posted up some design ideas and asked us what we thought. Comments on the design itself were shared (some didn’t like the chief, etc.). All of the comments were directed to the design that Cristian had posted (even an educational comment that said, "If you want it to look more Hispanic, rearrange it this way"). No problem. But then someone posted a badge. Cristian had not talked about badges, he had never said that he wanted one. That was "new design", that is, outside of the context of the discussion a piece of artwork was created to fulfill a separate purpose. I spoke to Mike Swanson (the creator of the badge) before I posted the caution. I told him that it was my opinion that the badge had stepped over the line a little bit and that I felt it would have been most appropriate had he sent that design work to Cristian off forum. He told me that he would never have done that in the public fora, but to go ahead and post the caution. So I did.

There you have it, folks. Perhaps this conversation will better inform the members of the purpose of AHS and its scope of operations and will better inform the Board of Governors as to what the membership wants it to be! Yay!

Patrick,

I apollogize for not using pm or E-mail to raise my question.  To be perfectly honest, I did not know enough to argee or disagree.  I was simply confused.

Thank You for your concise explaination of the policy.  While it may have been a little rude for me to raise my question in the forum, I am glad that your reply is there for everyone see.  Your post provides a practical explaination of the rules of the forum, the reasons behind the rules, and a practical example of how the rules will be applied.  Perhaps this post should be preserved at the top of the Heraldic Design forum.

It’s quite alright, Eric. I’m actually glad it was raised publically. I’m sure many people had the same concerns and now we get the opportunity to discuss it amongst ourselves.

An organization must grow and adapt to the needs of its members - we need to consider if our charter reflects who we really are and allows us to do the things we really want/need to be doing.

I can see (reluctantly) limiting extensive design discussions to the members only section; but further limiting it once that’s been done strikes me as "not a good thing."  We teach—and learn!—as much or more about the possibilities and realities of American heraldry in the free give & take of design discussions, as in nearly anything else we can do.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth!

I tend to agree with Mike’s last comment.

If exchanges are between members only and no exchange of money is involved, I don’t I see how that’s any different than if we were gathered in person in our club lounge, sharing ideas as we sip our Scotch (or whatever your pleasure may be).

Michael F. McCartney;52583 wrote:

I can see (reluctantly) limiting extensive design discussions to the members only section; but further limiting it once that’s been done strikes me as "not a good thing."  We teach—and learn!—as much or more about the possibilities and realities of American heraldry in the free give & take of design discussions, as in nearly anything else we can do.

Anyway, that’s my 2 cents worth!

Good. Now tell me where that fits into our charter. Remember, this is a not-for-profit organization and our ‘activities’ must, therefore, fit easily under our purposes as promulgated in our charter.

Dohrman Byers;52584 wrote:

I tend to agree with Mike’s last comment.

If exchanges are between members only and no exchange of money is involved, I don’t I see how that’s any different than if we were gathered in person in our club lounge, sharing ideas as we sip our Scotch (or whatever your pleasure may be).

Ah. Here’s the difference: going into chat and sharing ideas is exactly like gathering in our club lounge. It is our club lounge. The fora, whether in the public or the members only section, are the primary vehicle by which this Society fulfills its purpose. Read the Purpose section of our charter; it’s available on the home page.

The current interpretation of our charter, as held by the Board of Governors, is that folks may post their arms, or even new work they’re doing for others and receive comments (and maybe a little guidance) on the design. That is seen to be educational and fits within our charter. When that discussion goes to the point where new elements (charges, badges, etc.) start to be bandied about, then that oversteps the stated purposes of our society. It stops being an activity done for educational purposes (no matter how educational our membership finds it, the purpose of that is not educational) and becomes pure design. Design is not one of the stated purposes of our Society.

Sorry, I have to post every now and then or my computer times me out and I lose the entire message. So, to continue:

Remember, we are a 501(c)3 corporation organized in the State of Texas for the purposes that we, as a society, have set down on paper. (Read the Charter.) We have therefore guaranteed both the governments of the State of Texas and the USA that our ‘official’ activities will conform to that charter. Everything that happens in the fora (with the possible exception of the off-topic forum) is official. It is the primary vehicle by which we accomplish our purpose. We cannot do just anything and everything that we want to here; it must conform to the charter.

So, Dohrman and Michael (please do not take offense - none is intended, you’re just the two folks to whom I’m responding directly), that you ‘see’ no difference or appreciate the educational nature of the discussions on fora is nice ... but in the long run is just opinion. Opinion is important, too, but unless it fits within the scope of the purposes as set forth by our charter (read the charter ) and the limitations set down by the interpretation of the charter by the Board of Governors ... well, you get the idea.

But now that we’re speaking about ideas ... Eric has been continuing this conversation with me in pm as well and he has come up with a couple of doozies: perhaps we could form a ‘critique session’, that is, a section dedicated to design. In these sessions and artist/designer/etc. puts up a design and opens it to critique, which would include new design elements. Done purely for educational purposes (n.b. Having a coat of arms designed from scratch for nonarmigerous members would not be considered), that is, to explore the elements of design, etc. etc.

Another possibility would be to form a "design workshop" where styles and techniques might be explored.

I have told Eric that after the holidays I will start writing this stuff up to send to the Board of Governors for their consideration.

Patrick,

Has Hugh given advice on your interpretation of the impact of design discussions on our tax status?

Joseph McMillan;52597 wrote:

Patrick,

Has Hugh given advice on your interpretation of the impact of design discussions on our tax status?

No, I haven’t heard from Hugh on this subject. I have, however, more than twenty (maybe more than 30) years of experience with not-for-profit agencies (including, but not limited to, formation, accounting practice, and not-for-profit law). I have seen more than one who lost their status for operating outside of their purpose.

Also keep in mind that having been an accountant, I tend to err on the side of being conservative. I’m perfectly willing to be wrong on this issue. However, to date no member of the Board has told me they thought I was.

Well, this thread finally forced me to actually look at the current Charter & bylaws.  The relevant charter provision seems to be:

Article 3. Purposes.

3.1 The purposes for organizing the Society are to perform charitable activities within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) and Texas Tax Code Section 11.18(c).

3.2 The Society is specifically organized for the scientific study and classification of armorial bearings and the promotion of heraldry as the scientific study of armorial bearings.

3.3 The Society may undertake any action necessary in furtherance of its purposes, including, but not limited to:

3.3.1 bringing into closer cooperation any and all persons interested in any and all aspects of armorial bearings, such as their history, significance, specification, use, and display;

3.3.2 encouraging heraldry as a serious study or an avocation for Americans;

3.3.3 promoting research into the origins, history, and symbolism of armorial bearings and allied arts and sciences;

3.3.4 publishing heraldic research and studies;

3.3.5 encouraging legal protection for Americans’ personal use of armorial bearings;

3.3.6 formulating American standards for heraldic terminology, methodology, and data recording;

3.3.7 cooperating with other heraldic associations, agencies, and research centers, charitable organizations of whatever type, and public agencies; and

3.3.8 representing American heraldists on an international level.

Frankly I don’t see the conflict.  First, the enumerated list of "actions" in section 3.3 is prefaced by "any action necessary to the furtherance of its purposes, including, but not limited to…"—so the overriding question is whether a given activity "furthers" a fairly broad and open-ended reading ("any action necessary") of the overall purposes in sec 2.2, which is "the scientific study and classification of armorial bearings and the promotion of heraldry as the scientific study of armorial bearings."

The examples given in sec 3.3.1 thru 3.3.8 are thus illustrative examples of activities which qualify as "actions…in furtherance of [the stated] purposes"—that is, they are not an exhaustive definition, but rather they demonstrate that the definition of "any action necessary" has some breadth and flexibility.  On the other hand, as I understand it, "including but not limited to" would tend to suggest a general range or flavor of actions—essentially meaning "these & other generally similar actions."  In this regard, they clarify that the sec 2.2 purposes should be read broadly enough to accommodate at least the actions in 3.3, and others which are generally similar.

Also IMO the distinction between on-line posted discussions and "chat room" discussions is both not valid and not helpful.  Not valid because the forum is in effect an on-line message board and functions as an electronic equivalent of a chat room—it allows communication and a back-and-forth discussion between participants, the only difference being whether the communication is sequential over a day’s or a week’s time, or simultaneous.  Not helpful because a chat room (if I understand how they function) requires folk to all be available at the same time, which is difficult for those in the US spanning time zones from Nantucket to Niihau, and highly impractical for our overseas membership.  Or for that matter, even for folk in the same town with different work and family schedules.  Also not helpful—because essentially inaccessible—for those using work computers in off hours where the employer does not allow chat room participation on company machines; and for those of us suffering from "old-dog-new-trick-itis" who can barely function on a message board, much less master the new tricks of chat rooms.  The beauty of a message board is the ability to participate whether or not we’re all in the same time zone or have compatible work and family schedules.  I don’t begrudge the chat room experience to those with the skill and time flexibility to use it; but please don’t effectively exclude those of us who have neither, but still want to participate.

Also, the message board captures a written record of the discussion for further reflection and reference; does a chat room?  (I really don’t know, but if they’re the same as my wife’s on-line conference sessions, its all verbal.)

So IMO at least, the question is whether our design discussions generally serve "in furtherance of" our sec 2.2 purposes as illustrated, non-exclusively,  by the sec 3.3 examples.

IMO sec 3.3.1 itself is sufficiently broad—our design discussions are one of the most effective means of "bringing into closer cooperation any and all persons interested in any and all aspects of armorial bearings, such as [another non-exclusive "for example" term] their history, significance, specification, use, and display."  Similarly, 3.3.2, "encouraging heraldry as a serious study or an avocation for Americans"—nothing IMO encourages heraldry as an avocation - or even a serious study, you have to start somewhere—better than our design discussions.  There are others I could cite, but you get the picture.  If our legitimate purposes don’t extend to the point of promoting good design of new arms, then in an American context of free assumption, they aren’t worth much.

I’ve rambled long enough.  What do others think?

Thank you, Michael. A strong argument and much appreciated.

Quote:

Heraldic Design

The use of the AHS Forum for extensive discussions working through the design is limited to AHS members and should be conducted in the section of the members’ area established for that purpose.

At least to me, this wording from the forum makes it sound as though design work is permitted in the members section, just not in the non-members section.  Perhaps I am misinterpreting.