[Noisebridge-discuss] Noisebridge Executive Director

[Jeffrey Malone]

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com> wrote:
> Two questions then:
>
> 1) If we select an Executive Director by committee, how do we keep the
> committee from becoming an authority point in exactly the way you fear for
> the Board?  This is the beginning of bureaucracy.

The fact that members could join the committee if they wish to have a
voice in the process would prevent it the committee from being a place
of undue authority.  It's how committees have previously worked at
Noisebridge.

>
> 2) I agree that membership should always have the option of bringing the
> Board's choices to consensus if desired.  And anyone can do that whenever
> they like, anyway, simply by putting it up for discussion and consensus at a
> Tuesday night meeting.  If the position of the Executive Director, other
> Officers and the Board are to be ones that do as little as possible to keep
> the organization running, why is it not appropriate for them to find people
> to fill do-nothing jobs which only exist because they are required by law,
> which we can then block if we don't agree with as Christie has just done?

Christie just objected to an item that a member put before consensus,
not the board.

I fear the board simply acting without approval of the membership on
such a major issue as dangerous.  The position of ED is impotent per
Noisebridge policy, but the law recognises a very broad authority of
the ED.  It is as such vital in my opinion that we select a person
that the membership trusts.  I feel that is best done by the
membership.

>  This certainly sounds like "keeping the organization running".  In a
> nutshell, aren't you really expressing no-confidence in the existing Board
> to do their non-jobs and present us with an appropriate person to also do a
> non-job?

I would not go so far as to say I have no confidence in the board, but
I definitely have a bruised sense of trust.
Additionally, I never saw the duty of choosing an ED as a role of the board.

This view, I feel, is supported by this quote:

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
> The board is powerless, just as it should be.  The board exists solely
> to implement the will of the members and to satisfy the requirement that
> we have a board.

The thread itself, entitled "Board Member Platforms" echoes that
sentiment several times over from several people.
That is the basis on which I elected board members.  Choosing an ED is
a power, in my opinion, even if they ask the membership to approve
their decision.

Jeffrey

>
> Vlad
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>
>> I think that the order as you suggest them is backwards.
>>
>> We elected the board to do our will -- to rubber stamp decisions of
>> the members through consensus.
>> Them selecting an ED and asking the membership for approval is not in
>> line with that.  Additionally, there is no benefit to this method of
>> working.
>>
>> Additionally, the specific incident I was referring to was NOT a
>> situation in which a person would have been selected pending the
>> approval of the membership.  The objections raised were due to that.
>>
>> I have no problem with a committee being formed to select a person for
>> an officer position, and then have that person be put before the rest
>> of the group for approval.  But I see no reason why that committee
>> should be the board members.
>> As the power rests with the members, per our policy, I feel it should
>> be comprised of members.  If a member who is also on the board wishes
>> to participate, then great, that's their right as a member.
>>
>> In my personal opinion, we elected board members to not make decisions
>> on behalf of the members, but to carry out the will of them.  That
>> will is not a blanket "we elected you, so do what you want" deal.  It
>> is, as I see it, a position where they act as little as possible to
>> keep the organisation running, and have membership consensus for
>> decisions.
>> I don't want the board choosing our ED.  I just want them to rubber
>> stamp the membership's choice for ED.
>>
>> Jeffrey
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Vlad Spears <spears at 2secondfuse.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Jeffrey, I'm not sure why the Board's action was a problem for you.
>>>  Could
>>> you explain it for my benefit, and perhaps the benefit of anyone else
>>> seeking clarity in this sinuous discussion?
>>> Directly from the Bylaws:
>>> "Section 2. Election. The officers of this corporation shall be elected
>>> annually by the Board of Directors, and each shall serve at the pleasure
>>> of
>>> the Board, subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under any
>>> contract
>>> of employment.
>>>
>>> Section 3. Removal. Subject to the rights, if any, of an officer under
>>> any
>>> contract of employment, any officer may be removed, with or without
>>> cause,
>>> by the Board of Directors or by an officer on whom such power of removal
>>> may
>>> be conferred by the Board of Directors."
>>>
>>> We elected the Board to do our will.  I think the last Board member we
>>> elected was Ani, yes?  One of the actions they take in their job to do
>>> our
>>> will is to elect the Executive Director.  It doesn't make sense to me
>>> that
>>> if they can remove an officer at any time, you feel they cannot also
>>> elect
>>> one without first consulting the membership.  We, the membership, can
>>> then
>>> consense on their choice and the process goes forward.  If consensus
>>> can't
>>> be reached after discussion and debate, the Board offers up another
>>> candidate.
>>>
>>> It's a feature, not a bug.
>>>
>>> Vlad
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
>>>
>>> To quote the "meeting minutes" from the last board meeting:
>>>
>>> 3. We seem to need to appoint an executive director for 2010.  Shannon
>>>
>>> and Andy wanted to reappoint Jake as our figurehead, but Ani didn't
>>>
>>> agree.  We proposed to appoint Mitch, so Andy sent Mitch an email
>>>
>>> asking.
>>>
>>> I feel this was written with an obvious bias.
>>> As an attendee, my memory of the events were this:
>>>
>>> One of the agenda items was to discuss the topic of the ED.
>>> It was stated that the term of the officers are for one year, and
>>> unlike the board members, there is no clause stating that they remain
>>> on until a replacement is selected.
>>>
>>> Either you (Shannon) or Andy, I don't recall which, suggested that the
>>> board simply re-appoint the former ED immediately.
>>> As an observer, I objected to appointing an officer without consensus.
>>> Ani also objected on these grounds.  A brief discussion ensued, in
>>> which Miloh agreed that the board shouldn't act without the consensus
>>> of the membership.  Andy and Shannon then withdrew the item without an
>>> actual attempted vote.
>>> The topic then continued as described in the notes.
>>>
>>> In my opinion, this attempted act stepped well beyond the authority
>>> that is prescribed by our policies.  I later heard arguments
>>> attempting to justify the attempt, quoting that the bylaws recognise
>>> the authority of the board to appoint officers -- not the membership.
>>> That obviously did not appease my concerns.
>>>
>>> So yes, I am wary of ANY sudden suggestion of new authority for the
>>> board that has not been widely stated before.
>>>
>>> Jeffrey
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Shannon Lee <shannon at scatter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Jeffrey Malone <ieatlint at tehinterweb.com>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Call it overreacting, paranoia, or whatever.  But a certain recent
>>>
>>> attempted act of the board leaves me with distinct fears of them
>>>
>>> acting beyond the authority that is prescribed to them.
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
>>> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
>>> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>>>
>>>
>
>