[Bylaws-l] Board of Directors and Regions--A Recap

[Jack Eaton]

I'm sure it won't come as a surprise but I favor Les' "Option one, leave the
existing structure in place and let it continue to work because, despite
some issues, it does work. There is no perfect system and therefore this is
not necessarily a broken wheel on the wagon....we really need to stop trying
to over think what we have, adding layers to an existing structure and
putting more red tape into play than is already there."

I was recently saying to a friend that I was somewhat bothered by the
proposals for "sweeping changes". I remember when this committee was first
formed it was simply described as turning our sloppily written geekified
constitution into a form in which THE LAWYERS could turn into a real
world-like legal document which would be in closer compliance with our AOI.
We weren't supposed to be re-inventing the wheel; just making our 5 lug nut
wheel fit a 4 lug nut tire.

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Les Rickard <lesrickard at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ladies and Gents
>
> First let me say that, honestly coming into this I was very likely the most
> traditionalist of the group. Feeling that a number of things worked and you
> dont fix something just cause you can when it isnt needed. There is very
> little we do that is outside North Carolina Incorporation Law. The things
> that are can be tweaked with language alteration. But as I move forward I
> begin to see that we have an opportunity to change the structure radically
> and make this organization run with minimal concern from the members who are
> not involved with the corporate business. The day to day operations can be
> handled and not really ever become an issue for the rank and file who could
> care less about them.
>
> That said first and foremost I am very much against the changing of the
> structure to give larger regions more representatives. There is no need for
> this, we are not a government requiring more voices for more citizens. One
> delegate or representative for each geographic region we establish or retain
> is sufficient. If the RC needs more staff to handle larger regions then so
> be it...appoint them. for that matter I dont think we need as many regions
> as we have. I think we could develop a regional system splitting the US into
> three regions, maybe four; Canada into three maybe four; and then split the
> other continents into similarly larger regions. These RC's would then become
> the board of directors and you set the standards for electing and
> re-electing them in the MHB. You can give independence to the chapters
> requiring them to report to the home RC who then reports to HQ. But that's
> just an errant thought because I see other corporations do it and do it
> fine.
>
> Now one thing I do believe, and is admittedly an MHB issue, is a
> standardization of regional structuring to make services move smoothly from
> Chapter to HQ. I think that laying down a standard for how the regions are
> structured and function so that they all talk to HQ the same way is the
> first step toward removing some of the confusion we have when doing things.
> Most corporations, profit or non-profit, set forth a guideline and structure
> for sub units of the organization to allow for easier communication up and
> down the chain.
>
> Now...
>
> I have read a lot of what has been said regarding our regional structure. I
> have also seen some of the comments from the fleet  both here and on some of
> the lists.
>
> We have two options.
>
> Option one, leave the existing structure in place and let it continue to
> work because, despite some issues, it does work. There is no perfect system
> and therefore this is not necessarily a broken wheel on the wagon.
>
> Option two, radical change. With deference to everyone if we are not going
> to leave the existing structure in place then trying to add pieces to it
> only over thinks the plumbing, leaving more pieces to have to codify and
> therefore be able to break or loophole. We can develop a Board of Directors
> seperate from the RC's that conforms for a more traditional Corporate Board
> Structure
>
> So we either leave it the way it is or completely change the corporate
> structure to more closely mimic standard boards. By that I mean we have a
> Board of Directors that are elected for a term (or staggered terms) and then
> can be reappointed at the end of a pre-determined term period. We can still
> have a regional leader if we want them under this type of structure, but
> that leader is simply the "Fleet Commander" who reports their fleet status
> to HQ.
>
> I know none of this is going to be popular but we are either going to make
> some real change that makes sense in the corporate world or we really need
> to stop trying to over think what we have, adding layers to an existing
> structure and putting more red tape into play than is already there.
>
> My two cents.
>
> Les
> lesrickard at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bylaws-l mailing list
> Bylaws-l at lists.sfi.org
> http://lists.sfi.org/listinfo.cgi/bylaws-l-sfi.org
>
>


-- 
Towaway out.....

Rear Admiral Jack "Towaway" Eaton
CO USS Trident
Region 2 RC
region2rc at hotmail.com
towaway at gmail.com

Frak you, and the daggit you rode in on!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfi.org/pipermail/bylaws-l-sfi.org/attachments/20091119/45001c0c/attachment.htm>