The AMC is discussing general preferences regarding the many GTF suggestions, in preparation for directing the Governance Blue Print task Force on what to move forward on. I figure I can share this, since I'm the one initiating the discussions.
Currently we're beginning to grapple with two huge conceptual areas:
Representation
What is the best way to define the segments represented on the BoD? Currently we base it on geography, but are there other ways of categorizing the membership that would serve the organization better?
Specialized Voting BoD Members
Is Mensa best served by having skill-specific, non-representative, voting BoD members? And if "yes," should the general membership elect those specialized voting BoD members or should there be a method of appointment removed from the direct voice of the general membership?
3 comments:
BoD should remain representative, skill based positions should be by appointment by the BoD and their role should be operational, and non-voting. The direction of the organization is determined by the BoD who should be serving the members, the skill roles are there to execute the will of the BoD, if they were to vote it would be expected they would be serving their operation, not the members. Better to keep their focus on the operation and not be concerned about the membership.
Geography is the most reasonable way to provide representation. It might be interesting to have a BoD member that is dedicated to younger members to ensure the health of the organization decades from now but how would you select them? Selected by vote of members under 25, 30?
I don't see a good way of segmenting the organization up so that the members are reasonably equitably represented. While there is a mild disparity in this regard re: RVCs, it is much more close to equal than anything based on age or SIG-membership, or somesuch would be. (Definitely need to make sure that there's no way that anyone can be a constituent of multiple segments, as could happen if various SIGs had reps on the AMC - for example, the multiple year overlap between Boomers/GenX and between GenX/GenY.) I'm open to changing to a different method if one is found and proposed, though.
I agree with Kevin on making any professional skill-specific (to rephrase your item) position into a non-representative, *non*-voting officer - not necessarily even an AMC member. (I'm assuming this item is in reference to the Development and Communications Officer positions. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.)
If the Development Officer and the Communications Officer are viewed as professional offices similar to how the various counsels (Interpretive, Corporate, and Intellectual Property) are, why not treat them similarly -- as advisors and, to whatever appropriate extent, individuals who carry out actions on behalf of and at the direction of the AMC?
I know I've said it before, but it can't hurt to say it again: In our society, legislators are elected, not appointed. And given that we already elect one skill-specific, non-representative, voting BoD member (Treasurer), we can elect others as well. The issue then becomes establishing the KSAs required for each such position and building into the nominating process a manner of evaluating candidates against those KSAs. The last, I suspect, will be the hard part.
Post a Comment