<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:01 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">Vlad Spears wrote:</blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">1) If we select an Executive Director by committee, how do we keep the</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">committee from becoming an authority point in exactly the way you fear for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the Board? This is the beginning of bureaucracy.</blockquote>The fact that members could join the committee if they wish to have a<br>voice in the process would prevent it the committee from being a place<br>of undue authority. It's how committees have previously worked at<br>Noisebridge.<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I mean is, Board members are prohibited from self-dealing transactions and nepotism is limited by the bylaws. Board behavior is prescribed by the bylaws and they must conform to them or be removed. We vote Board member into their positions based on how we assume they will behave in their non-jobs as Board members. Regular members of Noisebridge have no such vetting process, and are under no legal compulsion to vote for anything other than their interest. So, how will a committee which has regular members in it be more likely to produce an unbiased candidate for Executive Director than the Board?</div><div><br></div><div>If there is a bad Board member or two, and they joined the committee with a couple bad regular members, the committee would end up a much greater danger than the Board.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">2) I agree that membership should always have the option of bringing the</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Board's choices to consensus if desired.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">we can then block if we don't agree with as Christie has just done?</blockquote><br>Christie just objected to an item that a member put before consensus,<br>not the board.<br><br>I fear the board simply acting without approval of the membership on<br>such a major issue as dangerous.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But can't any member do this, at any time? All we have to do is put it on the agenda: "Board made a decision I don't like. Let's discuss and potentially change." I don't see the danger.</div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>The position of ED is impotent per<br>Noisebridge policy, but the law recognises a very broad authority of<br>the ED. It is as such vital in my opinion that we select a person<br>that the membership trusts. I feel that is best done by the<br>membership.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Again, we voted the Board into their positions. You don't trust them? To re-state the above, you trust them less than a random gathering of regular members who will not be bound by existing bylaws and can choose a candidate according to their personal interests rather than the interests of Noisebridge as a whole?</div><div><br></div><div>What, exactly, are you worried about the Board doing? Given that we can bring up for discussion and consense to reverse any action of the Board at any time, it seems to me this is an attempt to solve a problem before it occurs.</div><div><br></div><div>Vlad</div></div></body></html>