I propose the change to be the following marked in Red (Within this propsal nothing has been deleted):
Directors## Responsibilities1. The duties of the Board shall include:
- upholding and advancing the purposes of the corporation,
- being responsible for the legal, contractual, and financial affairs of the corporation,
- fulfilling all roles as required by Ohio law.
- Fill positions withing the area warden program as needed by popular vote of the Directors.
- Any policy affecting the organization at-large will, unless stated otherwise, be decided upon by the voting membership.
Could you please provide a brief explanation of your reasoning for this bylaws change? The duty of filling warden positions has already been designated as a responsibility of the COO by the previously voted on Wardens Proposal. It seems to me that the only time such a vote by the board would be necessary would be when there are multiple candidates for the position, which to my knowledge has not occurred.
Currently one person has the ability to offer for any reason a half off membership to anyone as he or she sees fit. This adds a checks and balance into it so that there is less a chance of favoritism.
This would be a change to the area warden proposal that was previously voted it.
I’m also generally AGAINST this, for two reasons:
1.) The BoD should steer the “Corporate Boat” of Hive13 – networking with other non profits, setting goals for membership and activities, and the like; the bylaws are there to ensure that the members run the organization, not the board. Having the BoD elect area wardens seems counter to this purpose.
2.) The BoD only meets once a month. This may/will cause undue delay in appointing members (real world example: Supreme Court Vacancy).
This seems like it’s trying to solve an issue that I don’t think that we have.
So to respond to your statements
- currently 1 person has all the power for selecting wardens not the members.
- the leadership including board has a mailing list it doesn’t have to wait for a meeting.
So far I don’t think we’ve ever had 2 people wanting the same warden position. The COO has not been selecting them so much as struggling to recruit them. I think the officers such as COO, president, and secretary are in a better position to do this than the board. The “regular” officers need to be at the hive almost every meeting, but board members don’t.
It makes some sense to keep the warden program managed by the COO, because they are kind of like deputy COO’s. However, I think it’s also a valid concern about having too much power in 1 position. Not sure about best solution. Perhaps they could be appointed by a vote of the regular officers.
Currently it’s the board that can suspend a membership, this alone
Keep the board for legal responsibilities. If you wanted to try to come up with an alternate way of having the membership manage things, I might be able to get behind that but leave the board out of it. I’d be fine with a Vote of the Membership being able to overrule the COO, for instance.
Bylaw changes shouldn’t be taken lightly and I think this is totally unnecessary. When there is a documented case of the COO playing favorites with regards to warden selection we can deal with it then.
Sent before I finished:
The board can suspend a membership. This alone helps so that one officer cannot make it their club. I picked the board as this allows the responsibility to a preset voted group that is meant to be one group.
So we should be reactive instead of proactive? The board already has more responsibilities than just legal.
I think Mike presents the most constructive response here. If your concern is to make appointments by committee, the officers would be best equipped.
Also, often what is not written in by-laws is equally as important as what is. Common sense is assumed when specific procedures are not laid out. The board already has general oversight over the leadership, and the membership has oversight over the board. Essentially, unless everyone is out to lunch, common sense would prevail, and the board and membership do have authority to intercede as needed.
I am just curious as I have not seen any abuse of power or favoritism with the placing of members in any of the the roles in area wardens? Our group is very transparent and I believe if a issue were to arise it would be dealt with.
Kevin, why not be proactive instead of reactive. This was in my opinion something that shouldn’t have got past the first bylaw change for wardens.
I even brought it up then but the proposer refused to change it, on the contray I got mocked for bringing it up. So now that it’s a proper time I am bringing it up.
Keep the board for the legal shit. If you want to amend your proposal to allow a Vote of the Membership to overturn a decision by the COO, I could get behind that. I can’t get behind letting the board do it.
What do you think, Daniel? Won’t that accomplish what you seek without piercing the wall of powerlessness that the board has?
Dave the board is already more than just “legal shit” so I can’t agree with you
I guess we can agree to disagree, then.
Got ya, I was just trying to run through the reasoning because in my mind the hive can be very critical on people. If a coo were to put someone in a spot that they did not do anything, everyone at the hive would be bringing it up to leaders. As a form of checks and balances I would be in favor of the COO selecting wardens and if a bylaw change has to be made, have it be a review by the board of a warden that is problematic. That way the elected coo has the people to complete things he chooses because we elected him…then if for some reason it’s abused it can be submitted for review. Since it’s the COO 's ass on the line for keeping the hive running he should be able to at least be able to choose his team to help the workload.
Kevin, Normally I would agree, but the area wardens get perks and even so far someone has been bypassed due to a personality conflict, and not due to this person’s lack of ambition, knowledge, or experience. (Not the place to debate this exact situation.)
Also When it comes to discounted membership (which has never officially be raticated within the warden addendum) this can become a game of “who do I want to hook up.” It has a potential of showing a heavy favoritism. This would add a checks and balance to help avoid that.
Daniel, isn’t it the MEMBERSHIP that should be making decisions that affect them? I think putting the board in this role is kind of silly considering we have a mechanism to allow the active members to express their wishes - voting at a weekly meeting. Don’t you think that voting by the membership allows those affected most by the positions of wardens to have the most say in them? What if the board is a bunch of idiots? (as a former board member, I can vouch for this being a distinct possibility although somewhat statistically unlikely)
can you elaborate on your statement: “Normally I would agree, but the area wardens get perks and even so far someone has been bypassed due to a personality conflict, and not due to this person’s lack of ambition, knowledge, or experience.”
I’m sorry, forgive me, as I haven’t seen this happen and would just like more information please.