[Foundation-l] Re: Information flow

Thu Aug 18 21:57:02 UTC 2005

On 8/18/05 8:58 AM, "Delphine Ménard" <notafishz at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/18/05, W. Guy Finley <wgfinley at dynascope.com> wrote:
>  
> [snip]
> 
>> I made reference to this before Anthere but let me put it bluntly - you have
>> some work to do on boardsmanship.  Chiding those you represent for not
>> having complete enough complaints is not going to endear you to any hearts
>> nor help anything.  The board's position is one of governance, it shouldn't
>> be making day to day decisions on things that need to be run, that's what
>> officers are for.  Those officers should have clearly defined job
>> responsibilities set by the board and if they aren't living up to them then
>> the board, as a board, should give them direction.  Individual board members
>> have NO power outside of their vote in a duly convened board meeting.
> 
> Although I agree with you on the background of this all, I believe
> that  we as a community are not cutting board members enough slack as
> is, particularly to the ones who actually try and get some information
> out as elected representatives, Angela and Florence.
> 
> This whole thread and the various ones going on on this list or on
> other lists make me think that we have reached a point where we are
> redifining, or rather *finally defining* what the board should do/not
> do, what officers are for/are not for, what local chapter can/cannot
> do, in short, what this organisation is all about.
> 

I couldn't agree with you more Delphine, those are all legitimate points.  I
just consider it unfortunate that someone had to resign out of all this.  I
think there needs to be some effort put into the structure of the
organization, define what the roles are and then judge based on those
definitions.  It just seems to me that Erik Moeller wasn't given that
opportunity.  Granted, he resigned, but I fully understand his reasons.

--Guy (en user: Wgfinley)