27 Apr
2016
27 Apr
'16
12:32 a.m.
Hi,
Generally I concur with previous commenters. It seems to me, the problem
you have with "sensitive board positions" is a matter of trust, ultimately
having to do with money. Because this person is not part of the clique,
then the folks having a discussion about changing the bylaws probably don't
know them very well and are reluctant to hand over responsibility.
Unfortuantely, that's not the way it works. Unless by "clique" you meant
the entire dancing community of your organization, elections are elections:
it's not the current cliquey board that gets to decide who serves as
officer.
That being said, there is yet more to say about the sensitivity of the
finance position. Here, I would point to the bylaws themselves as a ballast
for trust. If your treasurer is the only signing authority required for
large monetary transactions, then this is the only bylaw I would suggest
changing. If two signing authorities are required, I can't see there being
much opportunity for embezzlement when, as a previous person commented, a
second set of eyes is on the books.
You can also consider drafting and enacting policies or standing
resolutions regarding how certain business is supposed to be conducted.
This will hopefully allay any fears of being taken advantage of. The
difference between bylaws and standing resolutions and be found here
<http://www.ehow.com/about_6590676_difference-bylaws-_amp_-standing-rules.html>.
There's also much to be said about talking to this person face to face and
letting them know what your trepidations are, and hopefully you can come to
an understanding.
Greg
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:52 PM, via Organizers <
organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Send Organizers mailing list submissions to
organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/organizers-sharedweight.net
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
organizers-request(a)lists.sharedweight.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
organizers-owner(a)lists.sharedweight.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Organizers digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Non-clique members in sensitive board positions.
(Claire Baffaut via Organizers)
2. Re: Non-clique members in sensitive board positions.
(Jeff Raymond via Organizers)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 18:00:33 -0500
From: Claire Baffaut via Organizers
<organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: David Kirchner <dekirchner(a)gmail.com>
Cc: "organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net"
<organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
Subject: Re: [Organizers] Non-clique members in sensitive board
positions.
Message-ID:
<
CADNUGEWSWdUDVYJ6vL4oOEKmCsyuRzp2RsG5HwxLB048yfncHA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Joe,
Unless I am missing something, your situation is not something to avoid. It
is something to be grateful for. You must be doing something right to have
people volunteer for this position without twisting any arm. The treasurer
position is very important, yet it requires diligence and understanding of
what is required. The work is behind the scene and has few rewards.
I have heard (and seen) of more organizations going under because of books
being cooked than I ever thought was possible. It happens more often than
we would want too, sometimes because the person is in denial of what the
numbers are saying, sometimes because the situation is too tempting to
resist.
The best prevention is to have several pairs of eyes on the books and have
frequent changes of treasurers so that no one is too comfortable. It seems
that you are in an ideal situation for either one of those. You could ask
that person to review the books, or you could ask her to take over the
position, or you could ask her to shadow the current treasurer and learn
the ways it is done in your organization before she moves into the
position. What I am saying is that there are many ways for you to use the
talent in a way that benefits your organization, in the short and long run.
Claire (Columbia, MO)
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:45 PM, David Kirchner via Organizers <
organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
Organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/organizers-sharedweight.net
--
*Claire*
I guess I don't see the problem here. Someone
wants to volunteer to help
the organization. Yay!
So the person hasn't danced much. So what? There are other people who do
dance on the board, right? It's not like this person is going to initiate
something that would hurt the dance and manage to carry the day against a
bunch of dancing board members who would know better.
If the problem is that this person would be bad for the board for other
reasons (unrelated to the lack of dance experience), then you should
address that the same way you would address it if a regular dancer who
wouldn't be a good choice asked to join the board.
David
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Jeff Raymond via Organizers <
organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> It is amazing how helpful new converts I mean dancers are and to ignore
> qualified personnel because they are not yet fully vetted could mean
> missing out on some good talent.
> Qualifications and references are in order.
> IMHO
> Be well, Jeff
> On Apr 26, 2016 5:16 PM, "via Organizers" <
> organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> The situation is unclear to me. Is this person unqualified in some way?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 26, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Joe Kwiatkowski via Organizers <
>> organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's annual election time, and a new dancer is answering the call to
>> help the organization.
>> >
>> > The individual in question is someone known to a Board member and has
>> "has served with other groups as funds manager/ treasurer type
positions".
>> Using her talents, she has volunteered to
lend them to the
organization as
>> Treasurer.
>> >
>> > This has sparked a battle among (1) we need to amend the by-laws so
>> this can't happen, (2) we need to mentor new people into leadership,
(3) we
>> need to just vote at the general election
and see what happens.
>> >
>> > A supporter of (1) claims that "that's what other clubs do".
>> >
>> > So without asking for the entire contra nation to take sides, let me
>> ask you organizers: what would your club do/what does your club do to
>> contend with or avoid situations such as this?
>> >
>> > Joe Kwiatkowski
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Organizers mailing list
>> > Organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> >
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/organizers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
Organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/organizers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Organizers mailing list
Organizers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/organizers-sharedweight.net