Reports

Executive directors are well-known figures in the world of non-profit organizations. I have had direct (form-letter) communications with several. It is a harmless relationship and no one gets hurt. They seem to stay busy with the affairs of the office and yet have time to develop manifesto-length communications that make me wish I had their job. Except for all the politics.

I am no expert on the history of our organization, but I am unable to throw perfectly good reading material into the recycling bin, so I am able to refer to the back issues of the journal for enlightenment. To whom did I lend Timber Framing 19? I may never know. I am sure it had something to do with the compound joinery article in that issue.

In Timber Framing 17 (September 1990), a small paragraph at the end of a report by Ed Levin ("Guild Directors Meet") quietly announced: "Realizing that the continuing expansion of Guild activities has begun to outstrip the administrative duties of a volunteer board and part-time paid staff, the directors agreed to take the first active step towards the hiring of a full-time executive director. A three-person search committee will lay out the lines of the job and report back to the board."

The job description at that time included conference director, administrator of all educational programs of the Guild and the dissemination of information to the public, monitor of the Guild finances, including publication expenses, and editorial contributor to the Guild's quarterly. Of course this person would get a part-time assistant. I must admit, I do not remember reading this paragraph before. My small company was busy, but I should have seen it. That is a pretty tough job description for any individual.

On p. 3 of Timber Framing 20 (June 1991), Jim Young introduced himself. I am unaware of the actual process that brought us all together, but he was hired by the board of directors (Arvin, Benson, Brungraber, Christian, Gardner, Levin, Magee, Murray, Landau) for a term of one year. His noted concern for the Guild at the beginning of his service was whether timber framing could have an impact on the houses of the next century, or would remain a quaint local phenomenon. This was only nine years ago. This was the first issue of the journal with any mention of email.

The Guild's seventh annual meeting in June 1991 produced a largely new board, as elections were then held at the conference venue. Lucky Mr. Young, five brand new bosses who had little or nothing to do with developing his position. (Gardner, Landau, Magee, and Murray were joined by Wilkins, Adams, Orpin, Witter, and McCarty as the new board met for the first time.) We then planted trees. We did not have auctions. Scantlings was unveiled and we heard of Guelph and The Bridge.

The announcement that the board had terminated Mr. Young was discussed at the business meeting in Guelph in June 1992. The admission of error and responsibility was acknowledged personally by Mr. Gardner: "The Guild was perhaps asking too much of one person and perhaps erred in the choice of that person." Mr. Baker wondered at that meeting how we could exist without continuity in leadership. The volunteers of the Guild brought the coffers a serious contribution with their labors. The Albion Hotel will never be the same. Nor will most of us who were there.

The directors added in Guelph were Beemer, Lukian, and Jacob. We encouraged and funded a trip to Russia to help build an apprentice shop. Our paradigms were notably shifting as evidenced by the continuing dialogue of purpose. By September 1996, the Guild was concerned about which 501c status (3, educational, or 6, trade) should be pursued and why. Plans for successfully landing projects and funding were published and applied. The suggestion of an executive director was raised again with the implication that continuity in funding growth would benefit all.

The 1997 directors meeting at Oak Haven, Burbank, Ohio, saw the rekindling of the recurrent goal: additional leadership for the Guild. While I was not present at this discussion, the obvious result was the creation of the project management position that was filled by Will Beemer. This half-time job was advertised within the Guild, and the decision process was defined by the board. The office in Bellingham was an official address, and we continued to grow. Successful projects and workshops served to raise funds in addition to membership and conference fees, and the future was filled with potential.

The stage was now set for the directors meeting in Gloucester, Mass., this past May. Friday night meetings included an announcement by long-serving Executive Secretary Sharon Grier that her term with the Guild would end in January 1999. The next day, visitor Brian Wormington placed a formal appeal to the board that they once again advertise for and hire an executive director. To encourage this, Brian was prepared to develop a newly evaluated job description, and soon got that in motion. Board members Andrea Warchaizer and Tom Southworth were appointed to recruit members for the official search committee. Tom called on Ross Grier, John Reed (a founding director and second Guild president) and me to assist.

The position was advertised. Five respondents presented detailed résumés and answers to some very specific questions. The responses were discussed at length and another round of questions was relayed back to all the candidates. This final rebuttal phase was performed on a short turnaround time as a form of testing task-specific responsibility. The results were enlightening and, we thought, indicative. Following the board's conference call on September 13, after much hand-wringing over the summer months, the search committee made a recommendation to the Board. This so influenced the Board that a decision to hold a new directors meeting resulted in a mid-October gathering in Marlboro, Mass.

I had been involved with the project long enough that I asked to observe the meeting. Using the honest and confidential referral by the search committee, the conversation, led and focused by Andrea Warchaizer, was a systematic approach to the problem at hand. The document from the search committee listed plainly the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. During the course of the day I observed the cyclic nature of decision by committee. The eventual standoff led to an interesting discussion of the possibility of hiring two individuals, since no single individual seemed to fill completely the job description. By early evening a consensus was reached and the candidates were informed of the decision by Tom Southworth. The board had decided to hire two executive directors, Will Beemer and Joel McCarty, both to have equal status and responsibility to the board.

Since that moment, I have been partly included in the loop of an ongoing discussion to work out the realities. On November 10, I joined a meeting in Alstead at Andrea's house for a dinner conversation that covered most of the topics of concern and began to hammer out precise duties, practicalities and budget. The overwhelming consensus was positive in that particular group. Significant progress continues.

The details of our future are naturally unknown. The possibilities are limitless. The board thinks that we need more and diversified leadership and is prepared to employ two very capable leaders in Will and Joel. Both have the experience and benefit of coming from within the organization and long service on the board, and both understand the subtlety and nuances of the Guild. Early on, they will have to face a board with three newly elected officials who have varying amounts of political experience. By definition, an executive director is to enact the mission of the Guild and the wishes of its board. The tasks specified appear to be more than one individual could accomplish. That was the case years ago, and we are a much different and busier group today. If we cannot afford to employ this level of leadership, then we have another decision to make. I think we need a project to test our new strengths. Suggestions anyone?

THIS brings us to the question of budget. Our past experience with an executive director wound up with the board, afraid of a financial hemorrhage, ousting leadership they questioned and doubted. Was this the correct decision? We did not fold, we did not suffer tremendously as a whole, but those remaining administrators obviously pulled it together, at some expense. A substantial and humble board moved forward with the tasks at hand. Sharon's invaluable services, and a responsible administration, kept the ship afloat.

September 1994 found a large number of Guild volunteers, along with the majority of the board, assembling a large barn for the state of Ohio in a largely untested model of contractor and volunteer, and a marketing opportunity for Guild wares. The Skamania conference produced the first formal discussion of accepting journal advertising, which readily appeared. At our 1995 rendezvous in Maine, a model was developing to pay instructors and cooks with workshop fees. It worked well.

At Williamsburg 1995, retiring treasurer Christine Benson observed, "It's extremely difficult to keep this community going. The only way is to create a ripple effect, to take another step." The event of that moment, though appearing to be a step backward, was the formation of the Timber Frame Business Council, which freed the Guild of its trade organization status. This allowed the Guild to become a purely educational organization, reclassified by the IRS, with many new possibilities for future funding and growth. New revenue streams were analyzed as the Guild made the move toward 501c3 status. The unforgettable 1996 rendezvous at Pinkham Notch, New Hampshire, again with paid cooks and instructors, was a soggy success story, a model of volunteers teamed with a professional staff and involving huge donations by the community delighted to receive a renovated building. There was cash flow in the equation and plenty of good energy. Volunteers did not pay to learn or eat but did work for little other compensation. The Guild coffers received the financial fruit of our labors.

From a small businessman's perspective, a budget is vitally important. The future cannot be managed without a plan. The Guild currently employs Sharon Grier as an executive secretary, working in a real office. To assist with volume-production paperwork, an assistant is employed. I am unaware of any complaints about this arrangement. We have a conference coordinator who gets paid to arrange our excellent conference venues. We have a workshop coordinator to ensure that the workshops we sponsor and advertise are of good value. The total compensation for these positions is substantial.

The board has proposed we hire two executive directors and omit an executive secretary. The budget numbers indicate that this is a rather daring move. It is, however, for a trial period, and as such should be given the opportunity to succeed or fail.

The 501c3 groups that canvass me, like hungry dogs you should not feed, have success raising necessary funds for large bureaucratic machines. If the Guild asked me to double the membership fee I pay to support better member services and additional professional staffing, how could I say no? I would not willingly let anything proposed by the Guild, and supported by its membership, fail. I intend to contribute all I can. — Curtis Milton

Curtis Milton operates Monolithic Building Services (milton@moose.ncia.net) in Jackson, New Hampshire. He served on the search committee to find an executive director for the Guild.