This is a phenomenon most volunteer organizations can only dream of when they don't have go begging for officers, much less membership renewal and dues.
There will come a time when the situation reverses for BFW and those people whining to be on the board won't be around when their time comes. An interesting question should be how did BFW become so attractive as an organization that one wants to be an officer? My two cents, DJ --- Dar Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been asked some additional questions off list > about BFW elections and policies. There are several > issues at hand: > > 1) the bylaws from about 1995-January 2007 were > relatively vague on elections...stating only that > directors would be elected by a plurality of the > votes of the membership and that ballots would be > provided to membership 30 days before the election > was finalized. I do not know if or in what way the > bylaws have changed since January. > > 2) until about 2003...there had never been more > people interested in being on the board than > available spots. The board regularly had vacancies, > in fact. thus, the current issues did not arise > when Jeanne Hoffman was ED. > > 3) I don't know why...but since 2003, there have > been more interested parties than spots. I like to > think this is because I did a good job of recording > when people contacted BFW with an interest in being > on the board. I kept records of those people and > presented their names to the nominating committee > and reminded the nominating committee when they > "forgot" about those people. It may also just have > been that the organization was growing or that > existing board/staff were doing a better job of > recruiting new board members. > > 4) Yes...people have been left off the ballot in > the past...but they were contacted and talked to and > "talked out of" running. Like John Rider. In this > way the slate was reduced to only those who were on > the board endorsed slate. Before now...no one has > ever been persistent enough to insist on being > included on the ballot (and subsequently denied). > As far as I know...no one has EVER requested being > on the ballot after having been asked to not run > ...and thus no one has EVER been denied being on the > ballot. > > 5) When I was ED...I would have assured that, in > accordance with the policy that I helped > draft...that someone like Pam would have been > included on the ballot as an "unendorsed candidate" > (I don't know the story with the other person, maybe > they agreed not to run). It had never happened > before...but I would have done that when the issue > did finally arise (which I was sure that it would). > I do not know if a)the policy has been changed, > b)the policy has been forgotten, c)the current board > never bothered to learn our operating policies > (doubtful, since the nominating committee is not > appreciable different than in January and I know > that they were informed repeatedly), d)the policy is > purposefully being ignored > > 6) It would not surprise me if no one on BFW staff > or board is able to confirm or deny anything with > regards to operating policies...the institutional > memory of staff and board members has essentially > been purged completely. I have informed some of the > newer board members of the residing places of such > policies...and have offered to assist the current ED > with institutional memory issues. The current ED > has failed to take advantage of that offer. > -Dar > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives > answers, not web links. > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies > _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
