![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamsharkI wasn't going to get into this discussion, but it was just getting too absurd. I posted this to natter a few minutes ago. I think I'm trying to bring the discussion back to earth by boring everybody to tears. Note: if you don't have any idea what prompted this, count yourself lucky.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be some confusion about the role of the Minnstf Board in relationship to Minicon. Since a Board election is approaching, perhaps this is a good time to clarify some basic points.
The Board does not run Minicon. Rather, the Board appoints a Minicon Exec (which has ranged, historically from 1 to 5 persons) to run Minicon for the club. The Minicon Exec is given seed money and directed to formulate a budget so as to make a specified minimum profit. Then the Exec chooses a committee and plans and runs the con. The Board oversees the financial aspects of the con in a general sense, requiring certain reports and accountings as spelled out in the bylaws.
The Board does not set the membership rates. It does not choose the hotel. It does not define processes or policies for the concom to follow. Board members have been known to remind concoms of certain long-standing traditions that have been followed by Minicon committees in the past and encourage them to continue those traditions, but the actual decisions are up to the Exec.
The Board is certainly not in the habit of second-guessing judgement calls made by the Exec in the heat of running a convention. The Exec has broad discretionary powers in both planning and running the convention and it would take very serious circumstances for the Board to intervene.
In cases of behavior deemed injurious to the club,the Board IS empowered by the Bylaws to remove, overrule or censure a member of the current Exec. This has never happened. Minnstf Boards have always interpreted these clauses in the bylaws to refer to extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job.
Note that the Board has no power to censure anybody else, including past Exec members. The Board does not conduct trials or hearings or court-martials. It does not take testimony, appoint special prosecutors, or generally speaking, go looking for trouble. The Board will consider complaints and requests that are formally presented to it, but does not go out of its way to intervene in disputes among its members.
Not being deaf, dumb and blind, individual members of the current Board have noticed that such a dispute is under way right now in various public forums. We were also aware of the origin of the dispute at last year's Minicon. Several Board members investigated the issue at the time sufficiently to determine that they saw no reason to pursue it further. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the Board approved (or disapproved) of any particular action by Exec members. It is not our job to micro-manage individual decisions and actions (unless we find evidence of serious malfeasance or incompetence, which we did not).
We were prepared for the aggrieved party to bring his issue to the Board, but he did not do so. Since the Board does not make official responses to gossip and hearsay, we took no action. One might say that we officially ignored this dispute, but that does not mean we are ignorant of it. This particular Board is about to pass into history with next week's Board elections. If you want to know what we would have said if a complaint had been brought to us, I guess you will have to ask us individually. Continuing to harass subsequent Boards, who will have less and less knowledge of the incident in question, makes little sense to me. Although there is, of course, nothing in the Minnstf Bylaws requiring our members to have sense. Sentience yes. Sense, no.
With the Board Elections coming up, perhaps it is a good time for voting members to review the Bylaws (online
at http://www.mnstf.org/records.html). Do you want a Board that will take a much more aggressive interpretation of Clauses VI(5) and (6)? Take that into account when you vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Kahn, Outgoing Board Member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be some confusion about the role of the Minnstf Board in relationship to Minicon. Since a Board election is approaching, perhaps this is a good time to clarify some basic points.
The Board does not run Minicon. Rather, the Board appoints a Minicon Exec (which has ranged, historically from 1 to 5 persons) to run Minicon for the club. The Minicon Exec is given seed money and directed to formulate a budget so as to make a specified minimum profit. Then the Exec chooses a committee and plans and runs the con. The Board oversees the financial aspects of the con in a general sense, requiring certain reports and accountings as spelled out in the bylaws.
The Board does not set the membership rates. It does not choose the hotel. It does not define processes or policies for the concom to follow. Board members have been known to remind concoms of certain long-standing traditions that have been followed by Minicon committees in the past and encourage them to continue those traditions, but the actual decisions are up to the Exec.
The Board is certainly not in the habit of second-guessing judgement calls made by the Exec in the heat of running a convention. The Exec has broad discretionary powers in both planning and running the convention and it would take very serious circumstances for the Board to intervene.
In cases of behavior deemed injurious to the club,the Board IS empowered by the Bylaws to remove, overrule or censure a member of the current Exec. This has never happened. Minnstf Boards have always interpreted these clauses in the bylaws to refer to extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job.
Note that the Board has no power to censure anybody else, including past Exec members. The Board does not conduct trials or hearings or court-martials. It does not take testimony, appoint special prosecutors, or generally speaking, go looking for trouble. The Board will consider complaints and requests that are formally presented to it, but does not go out of its way to intervene in disputes among its members.
Not being deaf, dumb and blind, individual members of the current Board have noticed that such a dispute is under way right now in various public forums. We were also aware of the origin of the dispute at last year's Minicon. Several Board members investigated the issue at the time sufficiently to determine that they saw no reason to pursue it further. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that the Board approved (or disapproved) of any particular action by Exec members. It is not our job to micro-manage individual decisions and actions (unless we find evidence of serious malfeasance or incompetence, which we did not).
We were prepared for the aggrieved party to bring his issue to the Board, but he did not do so. Since the Board does not make official responses to gossip and hearsay, we took no action. One might say that we officially ignored this dispute, but that does not mean we are ignorant of it. This particular Board is about to pass into history with next week's Board elections. If you want to know what we would have said if a complaint had been brought to us, I guess you will have to ask us individually. Continuing to harass subsequent Boards, who will have less and less knowledge of the incident in question, makes little sense to me. Although there is, of course, nothing in the Minnstf Bylaws requiring our members to have sense. Sentience yes. Sense, no.
With the Board Elections coming up, perhaps it is a good time for voting members to review the Bylaws (online
at http://www.mnstf.org/records.html). Do you want a Board that will take a much more aggressive interpretation of Clauses VI(5) and (6)? Take that into account when you vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon Kahn, Outgoing Board Member
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 09:13 am (UTC)However over here
I'm sorry to be bringing this to you, when you are clearly wishing those of us going on endlessly about this would just shut up, but David has forbiden comments on this entry, so it seems asking him about this would be rude.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 12:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 01:12 pm (UTC)Sounds to me like the Board was looking for an excuse (or, to be more generous, a reason) to drop the matter, as going further into it would certainly have been awkward for many involved, but that's another matter.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-09 01:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 12:44 pm (UTC)I don't see why any such interpretation is needed. VI(6) seems to me to be pretty clear on its face, and not in need of further interpretation:
"The board of directors, with and only with a vote of at least two-thirds of the full board, may overrule any action of the executive committee or chairperson(s) or the convention committee, if in the view of the board such action was injurious or detrimental to the Society and its purposes, or clearly taken for reasons of personal disagreement or personal gain."
Surely there are actions that are injurious or detrimental to the Society (we don't even have to touch on personal disagreement or gain) that don't involve "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job." Has it therefore been the policy of the Board to overlook such actions when they fell short of "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job"?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 03:16 pm (UTC)Has it therefore been the policy of the Board to judge all actions as not being "injurious or detrimental to the Society," and therefore not to overrule those actions, if they fall short of "extreme malfeasance or complete inability to do the job"?
The problem is that those two standards aren't related. I will address this in a separate post.
Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 12:52 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 01:03 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 01:17 pm (UTC)I suspect Google might be able to answer your questions about nonprofits.
Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 01:53 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 02:38 pm (UTC)Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 08:10 pm (UTC)Of course, any paper publication of which over 100 copies are distributed isn't actually private in any useful sense either.
Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 08:49 pm (UTC)And I'm not opposing the minutes being on the Web, but I would like to see some evidence that other nonprofits do such a thing, and maybe even sound out a lawyer, before posting them.
Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-09 12:48 am (UTC)Re: Thank you
Date: 2005-03-08 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 03:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-08 03:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-04-02 05:20 pm (UTC)Let me know?