Our next board meeting will be Monday, May 21 at 7pm. If you have agenda items add them here. The draft agenda is here:
http://makeict.org/wiki/May_21_2018
Bus fate
Consignment fate
Electrical quote
Getting things ready for Hyde Park.
Is the board going to do what is required by the Bylaws in Article VII, to send the petition to the membership to vote on a Bylaw change as required by the Bylaws?
Bus fate - What does the special projects committee propose?
Consignment fate - Yup, I hope someone will sign up to lead this here: Consignment Committee
Electrical quote - Needs to be a budget increase request from our makerspace director but he can request that in person, Iāll address it under āsafety and securityā
Getting things ready for Hyde Park - Iāve started an agenda here: http://makeict.org/wiki/2018_Annual_Meeting and we will review it at the board meeting.
Bylaws change - Malissa youāre wanting that change to go out along with the annual meeting/election stuff right? As long as itās in the folder weāll send it out.
Yes, thatās fine. I just would also like it to be on record in this meeting that we as a board made a mistake and didnāt understand Article VII. That we have a record of this so it doesnāt happen again, future boards have the information. I do think that Article needs a rewrite, but I think it needs to be after we fix everything else. So we can do progressive changes over the next year or so.
Iād also like to speak about the meeting with art partners.
Should we allow board members to be area leads as well?
Iāve also heard complaints about some people being on multiple committees. Should we limit things like this so we can grow and get new people interested?
I know there are some board members , that are area leads, and on 3+ committees. Iād like to see this limited, so we get fresh ideas.
The problem is actually due to getting volunteers involved as opposed to people trying to ācontrolā the system. There is plenty to do, in fact there is a list somewhere.
1 Like
I think that would be a platform item for your office bid. Not an issue the board should take up, without fully thought out plan of a proposal as to how to address the issue. For Board meetings, we should be working towards voting for proposals that have already been vetted, getting committee updates, and setting future items to address.
If we donāt let the board know issues, They canāt fix them.
Iām not suggesting the membership no let the board know there is an issue. If you or others fill like something is and issue come to the board with a plan of how to address the issue in a different way than expect the board to write and approve policy. Itās the right of every member to propose policy change and I think it would benefit us all if several members are having the same problem come to the board with the start of a solution, instead of a complaint.
I know personally, if I have two volunteers for a committee lead and one is already lead for another committee and one is a new volunteer not leading anything yet, I will always lean towards the new volunteer whoās not already in charge of things. Itās not always possible though because so often there are not two volunteers. And sometimes we have had a new volunteer whoās not in charge yet, but we arenāt sure s/he would be the best candidate, so Iād rather not have an etched in stone policy saying we canāt have people lead multiple things.
As for the board, I like having some board members who are also area leads. I think their perspective is incredibly important and a few board votes from people representing their interests is healthy for us.
1 Like
Re: Area leads being also Board members.
If the only way to get the perspective from area leads is to have one or more of them as board members, then there is something wrong. It is true that their perspective is important, but probably that should be able to be collected by the Makerspace Director, and or open discussions other than during Board Meetings.
When we ask for the time commitment required for being an involved Board member, then also ask for the time commitment from the same person to be an area lead, there are actually some people who can handle it, some cannot. It can lead to burnout. It definitely leads to conflicts of interest. It sets too high of an example of how much time we would ask of a replacement. It makes it more difficult to do either job with complete focus on the right part of the larger picture. It sends the wrong signal to the next person who should be already being prepared to be an area lead, that the board member does not think anyone else is ready to step up to the area lead position. This is bad enough when an area lead not on the board is not doing enough to prepare the next lead, but now it is one of the people who have a vote on who should be the next lead by their not stepping aside saying no one else could run that area.
1 Like
I think I followed that Mike.
Kim didnāt say it was the only way, just that it was a way. You are right that being an area lead AND a board member can lead to burnout. In fact, simply being a board member can lead to burnout. Iām not saying I know everything, but I do know that Presidents especially tend to take a sabbatical after we quit leaning on them.
That said I think we have been fairly open with the time commitment that is required for both positions. If a person thinks they can carve out that amount of time they may be right. We donāt presume to know what goes on in the personal lives of our volunteers.
well I donāt, but Susanā¦ told Gary, who told LARRY that Sherrie saidā¦
I was concerned when I saw this because I am a bureaucrat. After a little research, It seems that the board has acted in accordance with the bylaws. Article VII mentions āmembers votingā but does not specify further. I interpret this to mean that any meeting described in Article III with any fraction of the āvoting membershipā present may vote to satisfy the ā ās requirement.
Is this in accordance with the spirit of the article? I donāt think it is.
My current understanding is that if the board opened the vote to present members, whether or not there were any, then it complied with the bylaws. Also, What petition?
We will be voting on the bylaw change with elections at the annual meeting. If you want further details I can forward the admin list discussion.
Trysten,
I think you only are missing the requirement of a quorum.
Article III section 4
At a duly called meeting, at least 25% (one quarter) of the entire voting membership shall constitute a quorum.
Other than that the analysis you present sounds about right.
Mike B
The meaning of Article VIII is clear to me now. āMembers Votingā demands a quorum because all voting calls for a quorum, as written in Article III Section 5. The intent of Article VIII is to increase the voting threshold for amendments from the typical Ā½ to ā ās.
Thanks Mike! 