Approach B means that the loudest, most persistant and perhaps least social voice wins. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:01 PM, jeffrey <jmr(a)mochamail.com> wrote:

Following up from my terse comments of earlier today.... Those comments were: "Approach B means that the loudest, most persistent and perhaps least social voice wins." On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:01 PM, jeffrey <jmr(a)mochamail.com> wrote: - - - - - - - - - - - - In the immortal words of Larry Jennings, in his advice for dance administrators and their committees, from his 1983 book "Zesty Contras" published by the New England Folk Festival Association: (Page 26) ~ Ideas can only be developed through discussion. In that sense, there have to be committees. ~ Final responsibility best lies with a single person ~ If a decision is obvious, make it. ~ If not, talk with people individually: That may make the decision obvious If not, the meeting becomes inevitable, but you will be much better prepared for it. - - - - - - - - - - - I have more than a few opinions about process, bylaws, and "ownership" of events and activities of a committee, board, organization or group of volunteers conducting events, which I will not venture to state now. I would be happy to comment (off-list) on proposed bylaws that are being worked on. I admit to having participated on bylaws conversations of five non-profit organizations over the last five years (and having described how draft proposed bylaws were woefully inadequate to handle some events that might occur). Below, is an example of an occasion of a general membership meeting: the annual meeting of the (well defined) membership of the Country Dance Society, Boston Centre, Inc., which I presided over this week. For profoundly important reasons, the decisions made at such general meetings are strictly defined in the bylaws of the organization. I also note for all board meetings of the organization, that under CDS Boston's bylaws, members may attend board meetings (though are not necessarily provided the right to participate). The contrary example to my discussion below, would be a "run-away" general meeting, in which a well-organized, perhaps dissident group of members of the organization (that is if the membership is even well-defined for the organization), pack the meeting by unexpectedly appearing with a majority of those present (and perhaps also a majority of those voting by mail), and achieve their desired ends, perhaps taking over the organization, its board, and its assets, because the authority of a general meeting, and its ability to take action and decisions may be poorly defined or delimited in the bylaws, and fails to contemplate the fact that less than 5% to 15% of any group of members of a non-profit organization will either show up for a general meeting, or mail in their ballots for significant questions that may be presented the membership. Continuing: an example, not necessarily exemplary, nor necessarily a model for your situation: Country Dance Society, Boston Centre, Inc. Under the bylaws of Country Dance Society, Boston Centre, Inc., the only occasion in which the members of the organization may make a decision, is to have a general meeting agenda item and proposal presented to the membership via first-class mail, three weeks in advance of a general meeting, in the form of a ballot or proposal that may be returned via mail (which is specifically intended to permit the participation of those not able to attend). All other proposals, complaints, or conversations that might occur at a general meeting, perhaps including votes of those present, including straw votes, opinion polls, new or revised proposals by the members, or new proposals of the board, from the floor such a general meeting of the membership are strictly considered advisory to the board, and authority and responsibility for the CDS Boston Centre's activity and decisions continue rest with the board of directors, unless the advance proposal specifically creates an opportunity for particular choices by the membership. The president of the CDS Boston Centre presides over such a general meeting, and its agenda. The bylaws of CDS Boston Centre allows a membership petition of 15 co-signers to propose changes of the bylaws, or alternative (non-nominating-committee endorsed) board candidates. For proposed and petitioned bylaw changes, there's a mandatory response required from the board within a limited time of 60 days to issue a ballot and board-opinion to the membership, by postal mail. In short, it's possible to structure a set of bylaws so there is both responsible control by a board, as well as mandatory responsiveness by the board (and its related nominating committee) to the potential wishes of its membership, or organized (perhaps dissident) subgroups of its membership. Bylaws: one example: http://www.cds-boston.org/bylaws.html Another example, not related to my comments above or below, but interesting in its particular different processes (an organization I have had occasion to be a humble participant of): the New England Folk Festival, Inc.: http://www.neffa.org/bylaws.pdf An example of an announcement for a general meeting, which I was the presiding officer of this week: = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Please come to the Annual Membership Meeting of the Country Dance Society, Boston Centre, Inc. Wednesday, March 26, 2008. 7:00 Park Avenue Congregational Church, Arlington MA Free Admission to the English dance after the meeting for those attending the meeting. Doors open at 6:50 PM. - Hear brief reports of the Boston Centre's activities, - Meet new board members - Honor departing board members - Share your thoughts and ask questions Contributions to the refreshment table are most appreciated. Bring your board candidate ballot, if you have not mailed it in already. ~ Mark Jones, President, CDS Boston Centre = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 1:01 PM, jeffrey <jmr(a)mochamail.com> wrote: > i am now on a committee writing new bylaws for cbdc. > > there seem to be two opposing views on decision making. > A. a board be elected and it be responsible for making decisions. the board > can ask for general dancer input, but only the board can vote and make > operational decisions. > > of course there are both tiny, medium, and large decisions to be made in the > course of time, and no distinction was offered. just the desire that all > members (or perhaps, anyone that shows up) be allowed to make all decisions. > > to me this obviates the whole point of a board: having a small group that > can retain focus, be responsible for decisions, be available for making > decisions on short notice. > > comments on the B approach? has anyone tried it? how did it go? > > Jeffrey > chicago >