response 25 of 47:

Oct 24 06:16 UTC 1996

Most small orgnizations have those that do most of the work of the
organization on the board. This is known as a "participatory board".  Most
large organizations have the workers on a staff, and the board consists
primarily of supporters - people that find the means to support the work
of the staff. This is known as an "institutional board". There is, of
course, a "transitional board", which mixes these roles (for in-between
size organizations!). There are a lot of variations on this.  For example,
in some organizations, the board elects the officers (the staff), but then
they also serve on the board. In Grex, the board elects *board* officers,
who also serve as the corporate officers. My point is that different
structures are best for different organizations, and there is no single
principle to apply. 

response 27 of 47:

Oct 24 15:57 UTC 1996

My proposed board structure would guarantee that if there was a
conflict of interest regarding a staff issue, and all staff members
serving on the board abstained, there would still be enough non-staff
board members to make quorum and decide the issue.

Ethically, if the Board is voting on a staff issue, staff members 
should abstain.  You cannot sit on the jury at your own trial, or at
the trial of anyone close to you.   But if all staff members 
currently on board abstained, there would be one vote left, not
enough for a quorum.  Thats why I say the staff should never constitute
more than three of the seven seats.

response 29 of 47:

Oct 24 16:20 UTC 1996

current staff is trusted.  Will this always be the case?  M-net's
staff was trusted at one point but look what happened.  You cant
always assume the character of the staff will be constant.  Especially
with more and more roots being added.

response 31 of 47:

Oct 24 17:16 UTC 1996

M-Net's board apparrently didn't trust the staff.  That made being on 
the staff there very uncomfortable.  That's why M-Net doesn't really 
have a staff at this point, as far as I can tell.

Richard, would you be much happier if Valerie, Scott, Rob, Steve Weiss, 
and I all resigned from staff and stopped doing staff things?  Would 
that help Grex a lot?  Are we really being a problem?

Richard does have a point, though, about conflicts of interest.  A lot 
of organizations don't allow their staff to also be on their board, for 
that very reason.  Those tend to be organizations that pay their staff, 
such that staff on the board would be voting on their own salaries.  If 
Grex ever has a paid staff, that issue will probably apply here.  
Without a paid staff, it isn't relevant.

response 33 of 47:

Oct 24 17:18 UTC 1996

((31 slipped in))

response 35 of 47:

Oct 24 19:01 UTC 1996

I have some thoughts on this matter, which I can express as a newcomer
here. 

First:  Staff are the creators of Grex, and they keep it in existence.  It
seems highly appropriate that they should be determining its policies and
plans, as members of the board.  They aren't paid!  They aren't employees! 
They *are* the actual organization. 

I would almost go so far as to say that service as a staff member should
be a *prerequisite* for becoming a board member.  However, I do think it
might be desirable to have some non-technical people on the board.  Grex
has the potential to be--and is, in fact--a community for people with a
lot of different interests and niches in life.  Computer people have a
tendency to get very interested in technical matters which aren't very
interesting to other sorts of folks, and to turn every policy question
into a technical question.  Having a few computer-illiterate people around
might serve to guard against that to some extent, and to remind people of
what matters to the wider public.  Or it might just make decision-making
more inefficient.  I'm not sure. 

I will say that the computer nerds I've met here are the most sensible
ones I've ever seen--I wish they'd all been working in the management
information systems department in my old company--and I have full
confidence in their ability to balance technical considerations with
social, political and economic ones, for the common good. 

response 37 of 47:

Oct 24 19:41 UTC 1996

At the PFC, the bookkeeper, a paid staff member, was elected to the BoD last
spring by the membership.  Any member can run for the BoD, even if they are
employees.  Ours is a policy board, and the only employee we directly
supervise is the General Manager.  
On the other hand the General Manager is the direct supervisor of the
bookkeeper.  
We have not had any problems with conflict of interest, since the only salary
we control is the GM's.   
Other coops that I have been involved with, such as the Daily Grind, have also
had this situation.  If fact, it happens so frequently in non-for-profits that
there are a lot of experienced people in Ann Arbor who can give advice and
help to anyone who feels anxious.  I called serveral of them when our board
member won the election.  
BUT
Grex is more like a service organization like Kiwanis and Lions Club than like
a coop.  (See Marcus's impassioned explanation in one of the other coop items
where Catriona Davis suggested this was an organization designed to serve
members). 
As nisdall said *staff **are** the organization*.  Nobody can have a conflict
of interest if they aren't getting paid.  

response 39 of 47:

Oct 25 22:54 UTC 1996

I surely don't understand Kerouac's problem as expressed in resp:29
"current staff is trusted.  Will this always be the case?"

If board doesn't trust staff, it dismisses it.
If members don't trust board, they vote the bums out.
That is our safeguard. We don't need more safeguards than that.

response 41 of 47:

Oct 31 04:26 UTC 1996

The statement that the staff are the organization was flattering at first,
but it also really bothers me.  Yes, the staff does the technical end of
keeping it running, so without staff the rest of the conferencing system
couldn't happen.  Still, if the sole purpose of the organization was to keep
some obsolete computer hardware running, I'm sure most of us could find
something better to do with our time.  What makes Grex what it is, and makes
it a system the staff wants to work on, are the people who use it.  The staff
just provides a place for that to happen.

response 43 of 47:

Oct 31 11:29 UTC 1996

Grex staff didn't "create" grex.  The grex founders did that.  Some of
the grex founders are still here.  Others have left.  In fact, we're
talking about 6 different groups here.  Founders, board, staff,
officers, members, and users.  There is some overlap.  The founders
were, after all, interested in starting a system they could use, & some
of those founders are still here today.  But it would be a silly mistake
to think all those groups are the same today.

response 45 of 47:

Nov 19 23:04 UTC 1996

Um, Chaz, what was the point of that?

response 47 of 47:

Nov 20 22:58 UTC 1996

ah, i see.
he also states elsewhere theat he wishes he were in a position to run for
BOD... is that the way a potential BOD member should comport oneself?
my, my,my =}