Peninsula Wilderness Club (PWC)

Process for considering requests and proposals for PWC endorsement and support of an issue, cause or event.

Step 1:
Step 2:
step2
Example #1
In 2009 a PWC board member proposed that the PWC donate $100 to the Washington Trails Association (WTA) due to mutual benefit.
Step 1:
•WTA mission is clearly aligned to the purpose of the PWC
•WTA is generally supported by PWC members. No major controversy.
•PWC treasury balance was sufficient to support the request.
•No similar requests had been received.
•WTA trail work and advocacy benefits a significant portion of PWC members.
Step 2:
•Request involved financial commitment. Mission of WTA has some degree of overlap with similar activities (e.g., Sierra Club, Mountaineers). Board member vote approved the expenditure primarily because of WTA’s broad impact on PWC activities. Other organizations have more isolated impact, and probably would not have been approved.
•Approval of this expenditure was considered an exception, not a rule, and if presented again, may or may not be approved, depending on the PWC budget at the time. Many PWC members are also WTA members.
Example #2
In 2010 a PWC board member proposed that PWC endorse the Wild Olympics campaign.
Step 1:
•Wild Olympics is clearly aligned to the purpose of the PWC
•Wild Olympics contained provisions that would close roads and reduce access to central portions of the Olympics. Not all club members support closing access, and prefer to keep roads open. Due to the potential for controversy within the PWC membership, supporting this issue fails this test.
•PWC resources were not requested.
•No similar requests had been received.
•Wild Olympics would impact a significant number of PWC members.
Step 2:
•Does not apply (Proposal was denied in Step 1). While most club members support issues involving public lands, public access restrictions are more controversial, and would divide the club. The endorsement was voted on and denied.
Example #3
In 2015 a PWC member proposed that PWC provide a financial contribution and endorse extension of a trail around Kitsap Lake.
Step 1:
•Support of trails through public lands is aligned to the purpose of the PWC.
•There is no known opposition to this trail.
•PWC treasury balance was sufficient to support the request.
•No similar requests had been received in the last 6 months.
•This trail would be open to all PWC members, however, it has primary benefit to a community, rather than broad applicability as shown in the WTA Example 1. Passing this test is questionable.
Step 2:
•Request involved financial commitment. Financial commitments to a limited community would open a slippery slope when other community trails could make similar requests, and the PWC budget impact would not be clear. The concern is not the amount of the request, but the strategic implication of benefitting a limited subset of the PWC. Board members were not comfortable in supporting this proposal. However, if changed to a non-financial commitment, and submitted as a request for PWC meeting time, this request would be more likely to be approved. The request subsequently was approved by the PWC Present for a 5 minute talk at our general meeting.
Example #4
In 2015 a PWC member proposed that the PWC reimburse a club member for costs associated with a reservation system for a cabin. A PWC outing was scheduled, and cost per person was estimated based on full occupancy. When occupancy fell short of a full cabin, the PWC was asked to make up the difference.
Step 1:
•This was a PWC outing, sponsored by a PWC member – this supports the PWC mission.
•This outing was not controversial.
•PWC treasury balance was sufficient to support the request.
•No similar requests had been received in the last 6 months.
•Supporting this request would only benefit the individuals who signed up for this trip – clearly, a subset of the PWC membership. This test does not pass.
Step 2:
•Request involved financial commitment. Financial commitments to a limited community would open a slippery slope when other members with equally valid reasons may want similar reimbursement. The PWC board voted no on this, but made the recommendation that when making financial commitments for rental arrangements that each occupant understands that costs are variable and depend on occupancy. Each benefitting member that signs up for such accommodations should contribute a fair share toward making up any financial shortfall.

Click here for a PDF of this process