-
Please can you read through and vote on the following proposition for changes to the board structure by clicking here.
I'm on the board for a non-profit that runs the everyday business of a photographic darkroom. It's IRL because it's "in real life", in the "meat space" (ie not cyber space). We're an association in the linguistic sense, but an enterprise in the legal sense. Swedish corporate law is a bit fuzzy when it comes to non-profits.
My experience of being of a board that there are lot of practical things that pop up out of nowhere that needs to be dealt with. Having more people to deal with it and sharing their experiences is big benefit for the operations.
I know the troubles of finding people that are engaged and wants to commit to the cause. But I also know that cutting down the positions to a bare minimum isn't the answer. Merging two of the positions into one, say "Director of Policies and Guidelines" and "Public Relations Liaison" or let the Vice President do Public Relations is a better option.
Also, Thank You for being one of the founders. I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for one of your videos.
As long as you're feel it's enough and you don't hesitate to ask for help so others can jump in it seems fine to me.
Having now served on 2 boards I can understand the "red tape" and/or participation issues getting many people to respond in a timely manner.
Personally, when it works, I think a few more "voices" make better decisions (provide more points of view) but I understand how difficult it is to get full participation.
Probably not for this thread, but since I am retired, I would be happy to volunteer time to helping the site if you have specific needs.
Thanks,
David
Personally, when it works, I think a few more "voices" make better decisions (provide more points of view) but I understand how difficult it is to get full participation.
Probably not for this thread, but since I am retired, I would be happy to volunteer time to helping the site if you have specific needs.
Thanks,
David
I'm rather leaning towards 'no', but mostly because it feels like a move to fix the wrong problem. The direction really needs to be about encouraging and strengthening participation, and it's hard to see how slimming the 'management' team like this would do that.
In fact I also think the roles are poorly thought, because as you slim down the management team in an organisation, it becomes increasingly crucial that the roles you have left are defined with clearly and specifically targeted responsibilities, so that everyone knows exactly who has what job, and who to go to with a question or issue.
Thus, what you really need more than nebulous and fairly meaningless titles (in a team of just 3, you certainly don't need to use 2 as 'president' and 'vice president') is something more like: Chairperson/CEO (overall and day-to-day coordination, setting agendas, and chairing meetings etc), Operations Manager (managing the infrastructure, web and discord services, overseeing mod and admin teams), and Business Manager (oversight of finances, staff and member recruitment, record keeping).
As I have previously, I'd add one other to the 'management' team; a non-voting member who can input into discussion and report back to the membership, but doesn't have a vote - an observer, basically. Personally, I think this role is increasingly important as the 'management' team shrinks, with concomitant risk of too much power condensing into the hands of one or two people who might misuse it without oversight or broader debate.
That isn't to imply that our current board members are in any way like that, but I suspect we all know of someone who took charge of a busy web service with all the best intentions, and then gradually closed off any means by which he/she could be subsequently challenged.
(Apologies, this is poorly expressed, but I'm having a difficult 'motor control' day, so typing is laborious - hopefully the above makes sense).
In fact I also think the roles are poorly thought, because as you slim down the management team in an organisation, it becomes increasingly crucial that the roles you have left are defined with clearly and specifically targeted responsibilities, so that everyone knows exactly who has what job, and who to go to with a question or issue.
Thus, what you really need more than nebulous and fairly meaningless titles (in a team of just 3, you certainly don't need to use 2 as 'president' and 'vice president') is something more like: Chairperson/CEO (overall and day-to-day coordination, setting agendas, and chairing meetings etc), Operations Manager (managing the infrastructure, web and discord services, overseeing mod and admin teams), and Business Manager (oversight of finances, staff and member recruitment, record keeping).
As I have previously, I'd add one other to the 'management' team; a non-voting member who can input into discussion and report back to the membership, but doesn't have a vote - an observer, basically. Personally, I think this role is increasingly important as the 'management' team shrinks, with concomitant risk of too much power condensing into the hands of one or two people who might misuse it without oversight or broader debate.
That isn't to imply that our current board members are in any way like that, but I suspect we all know of someone who took charge of a busy web service with all the best intentions, and then gradually closed off any means by which he/she could be subsequently challenged.
(Apologies, this is poorly expressed, but I'm having a difficult 'motor control' day, so typing is laborious - hopefully the above makes sense).
I have always sought to play that role as an Admin. I have contributed thoughts and ideas to the Board whenever appropriate since the day of our founding. Yet, I am not elected to the Board itself. I feel that all Admins really do have the obligation, not simply myself alone.
I think it is truly fantastic many of you are making time to express your thoughts and even voicing your willingness to serve the forum in some capacity. That is greatly needed to ensure this forum will be around long after the founders and current board are gone.