|
Grex > Coop12 > #61: Issues involved in having non-local Board members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
krj
|
|
Issues involved in having non-local Board members
| 
Nov 7 22:09 UTC 2001 |
This item is spun off from coop item:49 so this discussion won't
obscure nominations for the Board.
|
| 23 responses total. |
krj
|
|
response 1 of 23:
|
Nov 7 22:11 UTC 2001 |
Porting comments from dpc, who I hope is not inclined to file a
copyright infringement complaint, from item 100:
#94 of 100: by David Cahill (dpc) on Wed, Nov 7, 2001 (10:38):
I want to emphasize the *lack* of problems M-Net has had with
non-local members. The Board meets at my house, and we make
two calls and put them on speakerphone. We have never been
unable to reach our non-local members, and they participate
just like local members.
|
krj
|
|
response 2 of 23:
|
Nov 7 22:23 UTC 2001 |
The conflict that I see developing is: Affordable calling of
non-local board members is probably going to require putting the meeting
at somebody's house, as Arbornet does.
Grex, by contrast, feels that it gets more participation by local
non-board members if it holds the meetings at a public space,
so visitors don't feel they are barging into a personal home.
My guess is that a public space where we can have the necessary
communications access to accomodate out-of-town board members is
likely to be costlier than we can afford.
|
jp2
|
|
response 3 of 23:
|
Nov 7 22:24 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 4 of 23:
|
Nov 7 22:30 UTC 2001 |
That's all you need, but where do you find free public spaces with
phone lines we can use?
|
janc
|
|
response 5 of 23:
|
Nov 7 22:43 UTC 2001 |
I wonder if we could cut a deal to meet at IT-Zone.
|
keesan
|
|
response 6 of 23:
|
Nov 8 02:17 UTC 2001 |
Were there any people who would have shown up at the most recent public
meeting if it had been held someplace public instead of at Valerie and Jan's
house?
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 23:
|
Nov 8 04:55 UTC 2001 |
There might have been, but we have no way of knowing. Certainly there are
some people who feel a little uncomfortable being in someone's house when they
don't know them, and feel that the Union or Zing's is easier. I don't care
myself, but a couple of years ago when we met at the union (a far cheaper
place to meet than Zing's, during the summer) it seemed like we had more
general Grex users show up and see what was what. I think location of the
meetings do matter, but I've yet to find what I'd condider the ideal place.
As for non-local board members, I'm not crazy about the idea. Having
done remote work with people via phone lines, the ATT Gemini system and
one meeting with the Bell picture phone system, I've always felt that the
technology was lacking. I know that I can't go out with a remote board
person after a meeting and talk about things, not FTF, and I think that
there is a lot to that, at least in the Grex community.
|
keesan
|
|
response 8 of 23:
|
Nov 8 20:52 UTC 2001 |
Holding the meetings in a restaurant might mean people feel obliged to pay
for something there and thus might be less likely to show up for fear of
having either to spend money they did not want to spend, or being thought a
cheapskate.
|
steve
|
|
response 9 of 23:
|
Nov 9 20:59 UTC 2001 |
Well, thats true. I don't want to diminish that possibility, either.
But I think it is the case that board meetings held in public places have
gotten a wider variety of people overall.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 23:
|
Nov 10 07:26 UTC 2001 |
re 7:
I always enjoyed Grex board meetings more as social events than as
board meetings, but I don't really think that was the most important feature
of them. The Grex board's more important function is to represent the
membership in making decisions on running Grex, and much as I enjoyed the
board as a social group, it seems more important to me to let the membership
choose who they feel will best represent them than to require board members
to socialize with other board members. Likewise, if I were still in Ann Arbor
and attending board meetings, I don't think I would vote for board members
based on who I wanted to hang out with, but rather on who I thought would do
the best job on the board.
But maybe that's more my response to my own misgivings about non-local board
members than to STeve's comments in #7, and STeve was talking more in terms
of going out with board members after meetings to talk about Grex stuff.
Perhaps that is more of a concern. Still, I don't see that as really being
more of a concern than the local board members who have declined to be
involved in post-meeting social activities, and I don't really see it as an
essential part of the job. Private board member to board member conversations
having to take place over the phone rather than in person may sometimes make
it harder to communicate things, but I don't think it makes it impossible.
I think this is really an issue the membership should decide, on a case by
case basis when deciding who to elect. If Jamie won't come to Ann Arbor for
meetings and is being up front about it, members who are uncomfortable with
Jamie being on the board are unlikely to vote for him. If Jamie does get
elected, it would seem awfully presumptions for the board to then decide to
remove him.
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 23:
|
Nov 10 19:30 UTC 2001 |
Presumptuous? If the someone is elected, and the membership does not
vote to change the bylaws regarding board meeting attendance, then the
board may be *required* to remove that person.
However, an alternate reading of the relevant portion of the bylaws (see
below) suggests that as long as the remote board member stays in contact,
they may fail to attend meetings and still remain on the Board.
ARTICLE 4
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.
|
wh
|
|
response 12 of 23:
|
Nov 11 19:04 UTC 2001 |
I think Article 4e is fine as it stands. You get elected, you show up.
You don't show up for a number of months, the honorable thing to do
is resign so someone more active can show up; otherwise, you can be
removed.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 13 of 23:
|
Nov 13 19:19 UTC 2001 |
I think the ambiguity that Eric is pointing out comes from the 'or' in "not
be available for meetings _or_ respond to BOD communications." Does that mean
that just skipping meetings is enough to get you removed from office, and so
is being out of touch for too long? Or does it mean that you have to skip
meetings and be out of touch before you can be kicked out?
I also think the grammar is a moot point. If the debate really turns out to
hinge on this one phrase, I hope we'd have the sense to decide based on what's
best for Grex, not based on the quirks of the English language.
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 23:
|
Nov 13 19:29 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 15 of 23:
|
Nov 14 21:39 UTC 2001 |
I'm not sure what you mean by "clear." Logical analysis of the phrasing
results in the conclusion that either attending meetings OR responding to
BOD communications within a four month period is an acceptable minimal
requirement to avoid removal.
On the other hand, a grammatical analysis would surely indicate that the
phrasing is horribly constructed, but that is entirely beside the point.
|
jp2
|
|
response 16 of 23:
|
Nov 14 21:44 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 17 of 23:
|
Nov 14 21:53 UTC 2001 |
I vaguely remember writing that article, 9 or 10 years ago,
so I'll take any blame for the grammar or lack thereof.
The intent was what Jamie says in the first sentence of #14.
The clause has been invoked exactly once, although not due to any
irresponsibility on the part of the board member. Mark Unangst
resigned when he moved away from the Ann Arbor and would no
longer be able to attend board meetings, although he was able to
continue functioning, via telnet and email, as a staff member.
So there is precedent for this interpretation.
|
flem
|
|
response 18 of 23:
|
Nov 15 16:26 UTC 2001 |
One could argue that "logical analysis" of the sentence states that you can
get kicked off the board for not ignoring all communications from the board.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 23:
|
Nov 15 19:36 UTC 2001 |
That would not be a logical conclusion.
|
flem
|
|
response 20 of 23:
|
Nov 15 20:14 UTC 2001 |
Sure it would. It might not be rational, but it would be logical, reading
the sentence a certain way.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 23:
|
Nov 15 20:33 UTC 2001 |
Does anybody want to propose a bylaw amendment to clean up the
language?
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 23:
|
Nov 15 20:33 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
mdw
|
|
response 23 of 23:
|
Nov 15 23:11 UTC 2001 |
Actually, if mju *resigned*, that doesn't invoke the clause.
|