|
Grex > Coop12 > #123: Proposal to modify selection of corporate officers | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Proposal to modify selection of corporate officers
| 
Aug 27 14:50 UTC 2002 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 118 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 118:
|
Aug 27 15:05 UTC 2002 |
Believe it or not, this is something the board has periodically
considered bringing to the membership. Again, since there has been no
complaint with the performance of, or selection of candidates for the
officers, there has been no motivation to alter the status quo.
You may have noticed that one of the hallmarks of Grex's operations is
that we try not to go out of our way to fix policy things that are not
broken. Our approach has been to keep stated policy to a minimum, in
order to maintain flexibility and not overburden our small organization
with regulation. So far, we have been able to operate very
satisfactorily within the parameters of our mission with minimal policy
(as opposed to technical) management, and until it appears that we are
failing in that endeavour, we shall very likely continue in the same
vein.
Now I'm not stating an active opposition to change here, but I think I am
fairly accurately reflecting the values which guide the decisions of the
voting membership. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 118:
|
Aug 27 15:14 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 3 of 118:
|
Aug 27 15:21 UTC 2002 |
There definitely is something to be said about making progress towards
a decision, as this is an issue very key to maintaining the interests
of the greater membership.
Should we try to move the discussion here or let that version remain?
I'll just announce than an item has been created, since the Agora
version has not been linked to Coop (not that I can't blame the fw).
|
jp2
|
|
response 4 of 118:
|
Aug 27 15:28 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 5 of 118:
|
Aug 27 16:44 UTC 2002 |
I would strongly oppose making the Treasurer a non-elected position.
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 118:
|
Aug 27 17:22 UTC 2002 |
Re #5: Why? It seems to me it's a position that demands technical skill,
which doesn't have much to do with political popularity. (I'm reminded of
when one county in Washington elected a coroner that used his post as a way
to push his conservative values, by declaring that people whose lifestyles
he disagreed with had died of embarassing things. They don't elect their
coroner anymore, that position is now appointed.)
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 7 of 118:
|
Aug 27 19:20 UTC 2002 |
Not only do I oppose making the Treasurer a non-elected position, I oppose
changing the termlimit rule. It is healthy for Grex to have more than one
person trained in the details of its finances.
We have survived every third year with a different treasurer. I am more
comfortable knowing that every third year, a different person is looking at
our finances and asking questions about why we do things this way.
No offense to Mark, but it is not sound financial practice to have one person
solely responsible for the finances of an organization for year after year.
The BOD might be lax in its fiduciary duty if it did not ensure such
auditing/oversight activities.
It ain't broke.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 8 of 118:
|
Aug 27 20:37 UTC 2002 |
(Why *do people use that term, "no offense, but . . ."? All one does
by using that term is annoy people with what is said next whether or
not it's offensive anyway.)
|
carson
|
|
response 9 of 118:
|
Aug 27 22:22 UTC 2002 |
(the full phrase is "no offense intended [to/toward <>], but..." it's
polite phrasing, so I wouldn't expect you to use it.) ;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 118:
|
Aug 27 22:59 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 11 of 118:
|
Aug 27 23:54 UTC 2002 |
Re 7: Ditto.
|
mdw
|
|
response 12 of 118:
|
Aug 28 00:50 UTC 2002 |
I definitely think it's a good thing the term limits force grex to train
more than one person to be treasurer.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 118:
|
Aug 28 01:04 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 14 of 118:
|
Aug 28 01:42 UTC 2002 |
(Grex doesn't have a one-person staff. only Chinet does.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 15 of 118:
|
Aug 28 01:59 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 16 of 118:
|
Aug 28 02:15 UTC 2002 |
The best reason I know of that the treasurer's current duties are
consolidated in one position is the protection of private information of
Grex members.
Consolidation means that information doesn't have to be shared to get the
job done, which means it can remain entirely off of public networks.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 17 of 118:
|
Aug 28 02:32 UTC 2002 |
Up there - good point brought up. How long does staff server as staff?
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 118:
|
Aug 28 02:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 19 of 118:
|
Aug 28 02:34 UTC 2002 |
(Grex's money isn't trusted to just one person. IIRC, there are at least
three people with signature access to Grex's bank holdings. also, every
treasurer that Grex has had has been very open with the accounting practices
used, go as far as to post a report every month. I don't know of any
other organization that does so.)
|
carson
|
|
response 20 of 118:
|
Aug 28 02:35 UTC 2002 |
(resp:17 slipped. staff usually sticks around until they get fed up
or drift away. why was that a good point?)
|
other
|
|
response 21 of 118:
|
Aug 28 03:14 UTC 2002 |
re #18: You're wrong. Anonymous (non-voting) memberships have on
occasion been arranged. Also, there have been credit card numbers used
for donations and memberships. These are the data which the treasurer
keeps secure.
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 118:
|
Aug 28 03:18 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 23 of 118:
|
Aug 28 03:38 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 118:
|
Aug 28 03:49 UTC 2002 |
Wrong again. The law only disallows anonymous *voting* memberships.
Technically, I suppose, a non-voting membership would not qualify under
law as a membership in the same sense that voting memberships do, so it
is really a matter of semantics. But for our purposes, they are legal,
anonymous, non-voting memberships.
As for credit card numbers, we have records from credit processing
services other than Paypal, before we began using their services. You'd
have to ask aruba for specifics about credit card numbers, if any are
even among our current records.
23 slipped in. The purpose of anonymous memberships is because some
individuals wish to support Grex anonymously, and some wish to have
access to our outgoing internet services, but do not want their
validation information made public. We do our best to respect that wish.
|