#01: Election of board members by SPI membership
bdale at gag.com
Wed Mar 12 08:50:58 UTC 2003
Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny.rr.com> writes:
> One advantage of the 'presidential' system is that it guarantees that
> *someone* is willing to do each of the officer jobs; in the 'parliamentary'
> system it is possible for all the elected board members to expect that they
> won't be treasurer, and to have nobody suitable. The existing by-laws, in
> which officers are members of the board by 'virtue of their office', seem to
> have been written with separate election of officers in mine.
This assumes that officers must be board members, which as I've already noted
does not seem common in the other non-profit organizations I work with.
> An advantage of the 'parliamentary' system is simplicity in voting. It also
> allows officers to change without changing the board composition, which can
> smooth out some situations (such as when the President decides he isn't up to
> being President, but is still up to being a board member).
Exactly. Circumstances change. I'd rather empower the board to manage the
set of required officers than end up with a board that claims they can't get
anything done until another general membership election happens.
More information about the Spi-bylaws