Constitutional review

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

1 hour ago, Fanatique Demon said:

Didn’t get the email.

Me neither. Nevertheless, while I prefer Chairman to President simply because the verbs from which they derive better suit the way I would like my club to be led, I recognise the inherent sexism in the former and detest the artificially created option of Chairperson. (I also recognise there is a view that the "man" in Chairman derives from the Latin word "manus" which means "hand", signifying who's hand is on the chair at the head of the table...but I digress.)

As to the nomination committee, can someone explain what its role is? Is it to identify new potential Board directors or key club personnel such as the CEO, CFO and Senior Coach? Or both?  

[george_on_the_outer 7,088]

37 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

As to the nomination committee, can someone explain what its role is? Is it to identify new potential Board directors or key club personnel such as the CEO, CFO and Senior Coach? Or both?  

Nomination committees are to vet potential candidates for Board positions.  They should be external to the organisation to ensure transparency and good governance. 

All too often they are filled with existing Board members, who are inherently conflicted, and so becomes a "jobs for the boys" scenario.

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by george_on_the_outer

[Lucifers Hero 37,463]

I not a fan of a 'Nominations Committee'.

Even with external people, the Committee members will be selected by the Board because they are 'friends of the Board'.  

At least with the current method members can vote for whoever chooses to stand with no prior vetting. 

Otherwise we may never even know the likes of Peter Lawrence want to stand or their credentials. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Lucifers Hero

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

1 hour ago, george_on_the_outer said:

Nomination committees are to vet potential candidates for Board positions.  They should be external to the organisation to ensure transparency and good governance. 

All too often they are filled with existing Board members, who are inherently conflicted, and so becomes a "jobs for the boys" scenario.

 

The Nominations committee should be a sub-group of Directors only.

If the Nominations committee does its job properly, it should hire an outsider to do a skills and gap analysis of the Board membership. That outsider could then recommend names for potential appointment to fill identified gaps. The Nominations Committee should then recommend to the Board who it thinks best fills any vacant positions. The final decision though, should be made by the members themselves, but based on the recommendations of the Board. Whether we like it or not, the Board should know more than the members about what its needs are.

Of course, the above assumes a smooth operating Board not riven by factions and capable of making sound decisions. When that's not the case, it's time for wholesale changes.

Edited June 3, 2022 by La Dee-vina Comedia
Added first sentence for clarity

[george_on_the_outer 7,088]

36 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

The Nominations committee should be a sub-group of Directors only.

If the Nominations committee does its job properly, it should hire an outsider to do a skills and gap analysis of the Board membership. That outsider could then recommend names for potential appointment to fill identified gaps. The Nominations Committee should then recommend to the Board who it thinks best fills any vacant positions. The final decision though, should be made by the members themselves, but based on the recommendations of the Board. Whether we like it or not, the Board should know more than the members about what its needs are.

Of course, the above assumes a smooth operating Board not riven by factions and capable of making sound decisions. When that's not the case, it's time for wholesale changes.

No.  Directors should not be deciding who is or who is not suitable, as is the current case.  That is where bias is introduced.  It should be external. 

[La Dee-vina Comedia 16,534]

44 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

No.  Directors should not be deciding who is or who is not suitable, as is the current case.  That is where bias is introduced.  It should be external. 

This is where we (partially) disagree. One person's "bias" is another person's "knowledge". Only the people within the board truly know what gaps they have and which skills they are missing.

"Partially" disagree because it's the Members who should ultimately decide, but, in my view, with guidance from the board. If the board appears to be incompetent, then their guidance should be disregarded. If the board is doing a good job, then I'm happy to support their recommendation(s). 

[Demonstone 19,813]

3 hours ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I prefer Chairman to President

I think "Chair" is appropriate for either gender.  Some prefer to add a "Mister" or "Madam" prefix.