At the next board meeting, the board needs to elect officers for 1998.
The 1997 officers were:
Chair/President valerie
Secretary mta
Treasurer aruba
This item is for discussion of, and hopefully volunteering for, the
officer positions.
46 responses total.
I volunteer to be treasurer for another year.
I think that Mark is doing an excellent job as Treasurer.
Hey there. I know that mta was having some doubts about doing secretary this year.. Hmm. If nobody wants it, I may be able to take over... Just thought I'd metion it as a vague possiblity. I'll figure out if this works and get back to you. (and of course if anybody really really wants the post, I wouldn't want ot stand in your way, but that's not the way it sounds from what I've been reading...)
Do the bylaws say the secretary has to be a board member? The secretary always has been in the past, but if a non-board member wants to do it that sounds good to me.
Re #2: Well thank you, Jared, that's nice of you to say. I'm afraid the bylaws are pretty clear: Article 3, paragraph a says: The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary, and a treasurer. So I believe officers must be on the board. (Sorry, Tricia!)
This response has been erased.
I think Aruba should volunteer to double as Secretary...he does such a prompt jub of filing the financial reports, Im sure he'd post the minutes just as well....I guess since its an even numbered year Valerie isnt runing for president?
I think it would certainly be an option to have both an official secretary, and Tricia actually taking notes. The secretary is "responsible" for seeing that the note taking process happens, but that doesn't mean they need to do all the work personally. (It's also an option for the chairperson to delegate running a meeting, or for the treasurer to delegate check collecting, etc. As long as the right thing happens, that's what counts.)
Well, I'd be willing to be secretary if no one else wants it, but I think it would be best if the officers are 3 distinct people. I guess I agree with Marcus that the official secretary need not be the person who takes the notes. But I think we should avoid the situation where one person takes notes and another types them in, since that's just asking for misinterpretations.
I'd be willing to be secretary.
well since its an even numbered year, maybe Scott should be president and Valerie should be secretary?
This response has been erased.
Would the other board members care to state whether they would be willing and/or eager to take on the duties of sec'y or chair?
It is common for organizations to have the officer "secretary", and to have that person responsible for making sure that all legal records of the organization are maintained as required by law, and by the organization's bylaws. It is also common for another person to take the notes, format them into the (legally) required format (hard copy, electronic files, etc) and post/preserve them in the appropriate place. The secretary just has to be conciencious (sp?) about seeing that these things have been done.
A recording secretary and a corporate secretary. I have seen this function well in one volunteer organization, but it is very hard to find a recording secretary that has no official position on the board. Uusually every volunteer position has to return *some* feeling of significance, and the job of recording secretary usually provides few. One thing that helps is to make it a official, board appointed, position. Then at least if grex gets 501(c)3 exemption, personal out-of-pocket and travel expenses can be deducted officially.
I've also been quite impressed with aruba's work as Treasurer.
Yep, me too. I also think Scott would do a find job as Secretary.
Too, I think it's more important to get the right person as Secretary and Treasurer than as President. So I'd rather see emphasis put on getting these two positions filled and then worry about a good-fit President.
well Jan, have youu ever nbeen president before? Jan should be 1998' s big kahuna...
I don't see that it makes a lot of sense to have both a recording secretary and a corporate secretary, since there wouldn't be much of anything for the corporate secretary to do. Only reason to do it is if we absolutely cannot find a board member to act as secretary. I'm not enthusiastic about being president. I'd be willing to do it if I could get rid of the shopkeeper job. I really am not ready to take on more Grex responsibility than I've got. I'd be willing to be secretary, though again, I'd rather not.
Re #16,17: Thanks, Dave and Mary. I really appreciate the support.
A corporate secretary keeps the corporate records, often the membership records, communicates on behalf of the corporation, etc. However in some organizations these duties are otherwise delegated or passed around. Actually, it is rather a pain for a corporate secretary to be *expected* to take the minutes - the corporate secretary is an officer of the corporation, not just a "clerk". But, of course, if the corporate secretary wants to....
In our case it's the treasurer who maintains the membership records, and if we need to send out mail, it's whoever gets around to it. So I don't know that there'd be much for the corporate secretary to do, if (s)he didn't take the minutes.
I'm glad to see that the officer slate is getting some
public discussion before the actual selections are made.
In the past, this hasn't been done.
Any of the volunteers (reluctant or otherwise) would do
a good job, in my opinion.
Well, in the past valerie has been PLAY (President for Life in Alternate Years). If she's elected for 1998 we'll need a new acronym. 8-)
This response has been erased.
Valerie has also done a wonderful job as President. I've been at meetings where she was able to keep people as focused as necessary in a low-key way, without creating any tension or a sense of formality. Not an easy thing to do.
actually, many orgqanizatiosn deliberately have a president who is not on the board. Theoretically, the president is there to run the meetings and pound the gavel, but shouldnt have to vote unless there is a tie or not enough regular board members to make quorum. I suggest an amendment that would allow the board members to elect whomever they choose as President, whether that person is on the board or just a regular member. Call it the "Valerie" amendment, because this way Valerie can stay on as President in 1999 or as long as the board wants her to. And I guess "chairman of the board" or ceo is a more apt title than president?
I'd want to check on (Michigan) corporate law before even considering such an amendment. I'm fairly sure that the officers must be on the board, by law; in any case, I've never heard of a corporation in which this wasn't the case. Admittedly my experience is fairly limited; but I'd be interested if you would name (say) half a dozen of those "many" you casually cite, richard.
Anyone that chairs a board meeting must be a member of the board - otherwise the board members can just ignore a non-board member. On the other hand, the officers are "staff" and *not* on the board of most corporations - nor can they vote, of course. The board always has a chair, even if that person is not an officer, usually elected by the rest of the board. There are many arrangements possible - but none like Richard proposes.
rcurl, you misunderstood me...my suggestion would have the president as a board member just not as an elected one, but rather appointed... the president would be the eighth board member and would *onlly* vote to break a tie or make quorum. There would still be seven elected board members, subject to the term limits and .etc, but the eighth board member (the president) would always be board appointed and therefore not subject to term limits.
Nope, can't do it. The board meeting must be run by an elected board member, to wit, the president. Forget it, richard.
That's what the current bylaws say, but it would be possible to amend them to have the board select officers and constitute the board to include the officers. I am on the board of (and was president of) a non-profit with this arrangement. Members elect the "trustees", the "trustees" select the officers, and the officers and trustees together constitute the "board" (I am also currently the chair of the "trustees", for the purpose of electing the officers). The articles of Grex would allow this (or something like it), but the bylaws would have to be amended. This system has the advantage of providing officer continuity apart from the electoral system.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! I do not object to any of the changes in principle, but I don't see the *need* for any changes. Retaining Valerie's acronym is not, I think, a valid organizational objective. :-)
#33...I like that idea...Grex could set it up to where the board appoints a Chairman, Vice-Chariman and Executive Secretary, who wuold comprise Grex's board of trustees. The trustees would be conisdered executive board officers and would not have voting privledges under special circumstances. The trustees and the elected members of the board would together elect the board officers for President, Secretary and Treasurer. The Executive Secretary would be Grex's permanent record holder, and would keep copies of all board minutes and financial paperwork. Thus if the secretary or treasurer lose paperwork, there is someone to back them up. The Vice-Chairman would be the designee to become acting officer if either the treasurer or secretary position becomes vacant between board meetings, and would be empowered to be an acting board member for a meeting if the regular board members cant make quorum. The Chairman of the board of trustees would be grex's figurehead leader and and would act as President if the President is not around. A 2/3 vote of the board of trustees would delay any board action and require a new board vote. This idea allows for some good people to remain in official grex capacities even when they cant run for the board anymore, and allows people to be in place when vacancies and emergencies occur.
This response has been erased.
But it *is* broke...there were lots of problems when Misti lost the minutes...if there was a backup "executive secretary" that wouldnt have been a big deal. It is good security to have two or three people in place as permanent officers in case anything happens. Grex *should* have a board of trustees (or it will end up like mnet and go broke one day because not enough board members come to a meeting to make quorum) I dont like that "if it aint broke, dont fix it" analogy anyway...that limplies that there is never a time when it is prudent to *improve* something, even if it doesnt need fixing. This is must a good idea.
Richard, I find it hard to see how your excessively complicated structure would solve that problem.
I will not be rude. I will not be rude. I will not be rude. I will not be rude.
Richard. Here you are promoting no term limits (in a strong way I'd say) and just a short time ago you were crying about how no board member should be elected twice or something like that. That there should be significant turn over, anyway. I see here a very clear indicator that you are throwing out ideas to incite heated discussions, not an indicator that you are trying to help grex stay health as you so frequently proclaim. I would very much appreciate it if you would stop porting. I'm not normally such an ass, but you just drive me nuts with you blather. And another thing! This discussion is hereby stopped! There will be NO board! NO president! NO trustees! I proclaim myself Dictator of Grex! I am even now marching over to the pumkin with all my guns to carry out my military coup! Heh. ;)
even if you have a problem with "if it ain't broke don't fix it" the primary rule should be "keep it simple." grex is really not a large organization, despite the several thousands of users, and the management of the organization is not a complicated endeavour, even if the management of the equipment is. the absolute last thing we should be advocating is the development of a bureaucratic morass of a management structure to manage a very basic organization. that is what is known as "having one's head up one's ass." so what if an occasional board meeting's minutes are misplaced, or not posted. anything of impact is posted anyway, and usually the minutes can be reconstructed. i'm not saying we shouldn't be conscientious about our proceedings, i'm just saying that we haven't got *so* much at stake that we can't tolerate an occasional mistake (depending on the nature of the mistake.) we simply do not *need* any more complex a structure than we have. we just have to make sure that the people we elect to give responsibility to are both competent and caring enough to follow through.
I agree with other. The only problem we have is that the outgoing secretary couldn't take or hold onto the minutes. That's a "people problem," not a structural problem.
I certainly did not recognize the structure I described in #33 when it got imported into #35! Part of this is that there are moderately well established meanings for different office designations. For example, an Executive Director is almost always an employee hired by the board to manage an organization (there is a national association of Executive Directors, and the job description is pretty well defined). "Trustees" is usually another name for "directors". Officers together usually constitute an "executive board", etc. But regardless of all this...I'm inclined to agree that Grex is small enough to stumble along as it has in the past. When more money and more responsibilities are involved it is advisable to separate the oversight and policy (board) roles and the operations and management (officer) roles - but not just to get the minutes done.
What Colleen said. (I frequently find myself chanting that mantra when richard gets going.) <sigh>
The current secretary had no problem taking or holding on to minutes, in general. Finding the time to post them was the problem. Just for the record.
Re #45: That was my impression. I got confused at #42.
You have several choices: