Did you see the agenda for the November 18th meeting of the Board? They are apparently going to try and bring back the Member's Exchange with only one Board Meeting a month and eliminating the requirement that motions must be approved three times. We might be making progress? Will be interesting to hear the comments when the issue comes-up!
What are Informational Exchange Meetings? Are these the back-door meetings that the board calls "Coffee Klatch"? Seems to me they're already holding Informational Exchange Meetings! Consider this; seeing how the chair President has screwed-up on her rulings at past board meetings, I find it hard to believe that she came-up with the wording for that amendment all on her very own? She's not that knowledgeable of parliamentary procedure, sorry! Bottom line: There were probably many versions of the wording to that amendment being kicked around by more than one other board member. And if they discussed the various wording and made the "decision" of what that wording would be, then that would be considered a "meeting" according to Robert's Rules and a violation of their own rules. I don't necessarily think the formation of the Informational Exchange Meeting is going to change anything that is currently being done other than the fact it would now make those secret Coffee Klatches legal!
Let's be very clear here: Informational member exchanges are simply lipstick on the pig. Sure it's more relaxed, sure it's better than having the board lord above us from on high. That said, the real information comes together in the work sessions and i see nowhere that is addressed. This outgoing board should let the new comers make the decision when they take office. At this point none of them will have a say as it will be a done deal before they are ever seated.
Good points, Bill. How about the board consult with some interested Members to help create a functional INFORMATIONAL MEMBER EXCHANGE? The board should not leave the Members out of the process if it’s going to be effective.
Good points, Bill. How about the board consult with some interested Members to help create a functional INFORMATIONAL MEMBER EXCHANGE? The board should not leave the Members out of the process if it’s going to be effective.[/QUOTE] EO- Did you have a brain fart?! The sitting Board consult with interested Members??!! Seriously, that would be an excellent idea but I, too, think that this Board should leave it up to the next Board to clean it up. And I did not attend Board meetings when Member Exchanges were held so I can't contribute to that conversation. I will say that I really don't want this sitting Board to "touch" anything else; just retire! Let the new blood in to (hopefully) clean up the mess left behind.
As I mentioned under another topic, I predicted that this board would probably attempt to bring back the Member Exchanges. They will be looking for some sort of "win" with the General Membership after the grand fiasco they went thru and all the criticism coming from the Members regarding transparency. They're gonna want to be the ones who can boast, "We brought the Membership Exchanges back"! But you're right Bill, this change should be initiated only after the new board members are installed considering almost half of the entire board is being replaced.
ODAAT, HA-Ha, regarding cranial leaks! I too, think next year’s Board WITH Member input should reinvent an Informational Member Exchange. HOW do we prevent Sue from proceeding with her motion (feather in HER cap or another jewel in her crown)? As usual, the content of the proposal is the board, the board. (Sigh)
How does changing the bylaw mentioned above benefit the members. I can’t see where it benefits the members at all and in fact reduces member input and recognition further. If passed, only one board meeting and some bs thing called a member informational exchange meeting which will not be video taped. They’re taking more and more control and basically tell members “the board will make all decisions in one motion”. Did I read the suggested bylaw change all wrong?
There should be a moratorium of all bylaw changes till the new board members are sworn in. The current board is not respected by those on this forum (and probably only those on this forum). The other 37000 plus members could care less. The new GM is a real question mark and I suspect he will be led by the exiting GM.
Here’s one for everybody to mull over. If the exiting GM is a SC resident what do you think is going to happen when she runs for the board.
Of course we can shoot it down - just like we did with attempted Robert's Rules removal and Annual meeting elimination. Just get up and object. Say "Thanks for attempting to communicate more, but....." 1. Are "Informational Exchange Meetings" and "Board Exchange Meetings" the same thing? Why two different terms? 2. Meeting MUST be open and video taped. That's the whole point of open and transparent. 3. Where is the addendum to this Motion that explains or at least defines the new meeting style and its goals and process. 4. DO NOT eliminate multiple readings - people need time to digest what the Board is doing and have ability to speak at next formal Board meeting. Again, that's the whole point of Member involvement. (Two readings might work). Did I miss anything? Obviously, this is half baked. Can we politely suggest a fully cooked version???
There's no question there is a lot to flesh out in this idea. One would think with new leadership from the gm and nearly half the board being replaced there would be an interest in getting it right. I try and be objective about our future and the potential for a return to the concept of true self-governance, but the board keeps flitting from one idea to another with little thought and even less input from the community that elects them.
I sent an email to all the email addresses I have collected from various places (FB, TOSC, Board meetings, etc.) asking everyone to please consider drafting an email to Board members re: the agenda that was posted. I used some of the comments contained in here to assist them in making thier point. One member received the following from Sue: "There are three bylaws we are voting on Thursday. Which one are you having a problem with? I am assuming it is about the Board Member Exchange and one Board Meeting. Right now I see this action being more transparent and will be able to answer member questions which sometimes go unanswered. The Board Member Exchange and one Board Meeting is what we did before and it was effective. The Board Member Exchange allows Members to ask questions without the time limit. The Informational session allows the Board Members to look into the questions if they do not have the answers at the Board Member Exchange and then report those answers at the beginning of the Board Meeting. I see this being more transparent. As a Board Member who has worked with the past as well as the present I can tell you that I feel we were able to answer member questions more satisfactorily with the past way. Thank you for your question and I hope this gives you the answer." Sue Wilson | President You'll notice nothing was said about "Will the Information Member Exchanges be video-taped? Why not? Why didn’t you mention Board/Member Work Sessions? They should happen; they should be video-taped. That creates the atmosphere of openness and transparency. I also heard from another person who wanted more details about BOD meeting so that they could attend. Maybe we're getting somewhere.
It was interesting to see that Sue pulled her amendment about Member Exchanges from the agenda at today's meeting. Perhaps she got the message that that type of bylaw change should be determined by the new incoming board?
Hell FYI, maybe she read our comments here and took them to heart. After all, we do give the best advice.
