I had a couple of questions/concerns on the bylaws I haven't seen
discussed. Forgive my naiveté on the matter - I have studiously
avoided political structures whenever possible. "Never attribute to
malice that which can be explained by incompetence."
1. Number and composition of the Board of Directors: I'd like to
ensure that each chapter feels they are represented on the board, as
this is _their_ ( and our) organization. I don't want to hear "Those
guys in Penacook decided..." from an outlying chapter. (Arguably, the
email list and the IRC channel could argue they deserve
representation, too!) I'd also like a couple of "At-Large" members
who are interested in the overall organization. OTOH, I don't want to
form a body to compete with the New Hampshire Legislature in size.
This would imply that we might need to better define what constitutes
a chapter, if each chapter gets to vote in their own member,
otherwise, I'll form a Contoocook chapter and nominate myself. Hmm,
no second.
2. Rotating terms: in the proposed by-laws, all BoD members are
elected for a three-year term. Frankly, I'd be very grateful for any
volunteer willing to work for the group that long. I would not be
surprised if more than a few volunteers need to beg off due to
changing circumstances of employment, family or health, so some
turnover would be expected. Rotating expirations would ensure some
continuity while bringing new members into the Bod, but would triple
the hassle of holding an election each year vice three (and where
likely only one volunteer is willing to step forward). Comments?
3. Term limits: while some folks may get too comfortable in their
positions, it's far more likely we can be eternally grateful to
someone willing to do one of the jobs here. I'd be opposed to term
limits, but wanted a discussion in the transparent open.
4. Inclusive qualifications for membership: It's tempting to make
some differentiation between non-voting attendees, associate
memberships, and contributing/sustaining memberships, but we get into
the landed vs. commoner bicameral solutions that have done the US so
well until recently. Way too complex imo. I'd prefer money not be a
differentiator within the group, so requiring some dues for voting
membership is just an exclusionary poll tax by another name.
Organizations work best with a dynamic tension and checks and
balances. The egalitarian thing to to allow all members who wish to
be members.
5. Membership exclusion: The reality is that there may be some
limitations we as a group wish to place on membership, or the
possibility that a member needs to be excluded for some reason. How
should we define membership?
6. Finally, should we leave this to the first BoD to bring to the -
org list to discuss and establish as a policy document rather than
encoding this in the bylaws?
Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-org mailing list
gnhlug-org@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-org
