[Noisebridge-discuss] [drama] Noisebridge Executive Director

[davidfine]

I have added the [drama] tag to this thread. Please keep this tag in the 
subject and carry on.
Thanks for helping me sort my inbox!
--D

On 3/1/10 3:01 PM, Jeffrey Malone wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>
>>      
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>