|
|
| Author |
Message |
mooncat
|
|
Board Member Absences
| 
May 13 18:31 UTC 2003 |
The situation has come up recently where a board member has missed
three consecutive meetings. The bylaws state that the board may take
action at that time. However what the bylaws do not detail is just what
that action should be.
The board members present felt that whatever action was taken in this
case should be the action taken every time this situation arises.
While we can all understand when events work out in such a way that
attendance at a meeting is not possible, it does make it difficult when
those events continue to crop up.
The board also felt that the immediate removal of the missing member
was not called for at this time.
What we would like now is the opinions of the user base so that we can
come to a decision about the current situation, and create a precedent
for future possible occurrences.
Your Thoughts?
|
| 19 responses total. |
cross
|
|
response 1 of 19:
|
May 13 18:40 UTC 2003 |
I suggest politely reminding that board member of said bylaw, and asking
them if they can devote the time necessary to serve the board. If the
problem persists (if indeed it is a problem, which it doesn't really
sound like it is in this case), then take action.
In general, I think the board should evaluate each case where this
happens individually; it doesn't sound like it happens frequently.
|
aruba
|
|
response 2 of 19:
|
May 13 18:55 UTC 2003 |
Here's what the bylaws actually say:
e. A BOD member shall be removed from office if they resign,
not be available for meetings or respond to BOD
communications for a period of four months, or be voted out
of office by a vote of the membership, with 3/4 of the
ballots cast in favor of removal.
So actually it's 4 months that is the cutoff, not 3 as we all thought we
remembered at the meeting. It sounds like a board member has to also be
incommunicado for that time in order to be removed, but it's a little
unclear.
Re #1: Well, it's not something that is going to bring Grex to its knees
right this second, but I do think that being on the board requires (at the
*very* least) a commitment to attend meetings. If for no other reason than
the fact that 5 board members must be present at a meeting in order for
anything to be accomplished.
|
tod
|
|
response 3 of 19:
|
May 13 19:11 UTC 2003 |
I would suggest making a cut-off date and mandatory removal. That will
alleviate the BoD from emotional footdragging or being perceived as biased.
|
keesan
|
|
response 4 of 19:
|
May 13 22:18 UTC 2003 |
Could the bylaws be amended slightly so that if a current board member is
removed due to non-attendance, they are replaced by the runner-up?
|
tod
|
|
response 5 of 19:
|
May 13 22:42 UTC 2003 |
Or replaced by an immediate election in the following month if the runner-up
is no longer available.
|
other
|
|
response 6 of 19:
|
May 13 22:54 UTC 2003 |
#1: That was done, and rather elegantly, by Anne (mooncat).
#3: The idea has a certain appeal, but I think the rationale expressed
in #1 should dominate. This is not a common scenario for us, and I don't
think the board would handle it any less expediently than they should.
Keep in mind, on Grex the board members are not granted vast authority or
responsibility as compared to other members, so a rigid policy wouldn't
necessarily serve our best interests. In general, we try to avoid making
policy when precedent and practice will do.
#4: That is an intriguing idea, but given that a board term is two
years, I think simply calling a new election would be more appropriate.
There's no way to guarantee that the runner-up would still be interested,
available and appropriate.
#5 slipped in. We would likely do that anyway, so why change the bylaws
to require it?
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 19:
|
May 14 12:19 UTC 2003 |
Replacement would be handled by the procedures spelled out in the
bylaws for special elections, I'd think.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 8 of 19:
|
May 14 14:26 UTC 2003 |
The Food Coop board allows for excused and unexcused absences. Excused means
you let fellow board members know ahead of time, and the excuse sounded
rational to them. Unexcused means they didn't know you weren't coming, and/or
the excuse you gave was too lame to be believed, and/or it had happened so
many times in a row that someone was delegated to ask you if there was any
reason you shouldn't be removed from the board under the "three absences"
by-law.
|
jep
|
|
response 9 of 19:
|
May 14 15:16 UTC 2003 |
I'd think it'd be appropriate to expect a Board member who's going to
be absent to notify the rest of the Board beforehand. It's pretty
basic courtesy.
I would find it annoying, as a Board member, if I tried to attend
meetings but they were often being cancelled or postponed because of
one person who didn't bother to come. If one person is causing that
much of a problem, they should be asked to resign, or removed by vote
if necessary. I don't see any indication there is that much of a
problem.
I'm not concerned at all about favoritism here; the Board are the ones
who are affected if they have to postpone meetings. I'm not affected.
If there's blatant favoritism -- one person misses 6 straight meetings
but another is removed after 2 absences -- I'd take notice.
We're a small group, and don't really need the formalities necessary in
a large group for being consistent. There is no big problem here that
requires a policy to solve. There's a small one which can be solved
easily, informally and productively. I'd prefer to see that kind of
solution used whenever possible.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 10 of 19:
|
May 14 15:57 UTC 2003 |
Only comment is that automatically installing the runner up from the previous
election to fill a "kicked out" board member is inappropriate. If the BOD
is given appointment powers to temporarily fill a vacated position, they can
appoint anyone, including the runner up. A special election should be
arranged will all due expediting.
|
flem
|
|
response 11 of 19:
|
May 14 16:14 UTC 2003 |
/agree with #9
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 12 of 19:
|
May 14 22:44 UTC 2003 |
The Bylaw doesn't give you an option if they meet the criteria, it says "shall
be removed." It doesn't talk about simple absence from meetings, though, it
says "not be available for meetings or respond to BOD communications," so
as long as the member responds to BOD communications, you don't have to
remove them.
So... you don't actually have a rule about someone who just misses
meetings. You have a rule about board members who disappear off the face
of the Earth, and that rule removes them automatically if they do it for
four months.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 13 of 19:
|
May 15 13:00 UTC 2003 |
and keep in mind they can call in from home to participate.
|
dpc
|
|
response 14 of 19:
|
May 15 14:37 UTC 2003 |
I think the present bylaw is fine. Obviously if someone is not
responding to BOD communications for 4 months, s/he has essentially
walked away from his/her duties as a BOD member.
|
mary
|
|
response 15 of 19:
|
May 15 20:52 UTC 2003 |
Anne wrote this member a really nice letter, stating how his input is
valued and encouraging him to attend the next meeting. She also gave him
lots of room to change the date of the next meeting so it could fit his
schedule.
Anne writes great letters.
So far (it's only been since Tuesday) there has been no response that I'm
aware of. At present there are enough members attending regularly that
Grex business hasn't suffered. But it takes five to make quorum and we
only have seven board members - not a lot of wiggle room.
|
cross
|
|
response 16 of 19:
|
May 15 21:47 UTC 2003 |
(I thought the board member in question publically addressed this
in a different item?)
|
mary
|
|
response 17 of 19:
|
May 16 10:56 UTC 2003 |
Not that I've read. But I don't read everything.
|
cross
|
|
response 18 of 19:
|
May 16 16:35 UTC 2003 |
That could be a problem....
|
jp2
|
|
response 19 of 19:
|
Jun 4 15:07 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|