Ilario Valdelli wrote:
The point is this: the board *must* represent the
community but the
board *must* be also the link between the community and the management
(it's natural because the choice of the management is that any manager
can be *not* wikipedian).
With a function of *control* of the board on the management's work the
community can have *trust* on management's work.
In this vision I said that the role of treasurer is bigger than the
role that a board's member can have, but if we are looking for a
treasurer in a traditional point of view the treasurer must be a
person outside the board (probably), but in this case he will be a
member of the management.
Ilario,
We are not looking for a treasurer in the traditional view. Our finances
are primarily handled by the accountant and the CFOO, who are both staff
members. The treasurer will not have "the hands in the books".
His role will be to
* Manage, with the finance committee to be created, the board's review
of and action related to the board's financial responsibilities;
* Work with the chief executive to ensure that appropriate financial
reports are made available to the board. Regularly reviews reports to
board on key financial events, trends, concerns, and assessment of
fiscal health;
* May work directly with the bookkeeper or other staff in developing and
implementing financial procedures and systems;
* Serves as support to the financial officer of the organization and as
chairperson of the finance committee;
* Serves on the audit committee;
* Review the annual budget that is presented to the balance of the board
for approval;
* Review the annual audit and answers board members' questions about the
audit;
* Provides financial and operational advice and guidance to the board as
required.
This role will be clearly separated from the management, so there is no
self-control.
In comparison, in all our chapters, the treasurer has a much larger
role, doing both control and execution. This is generally considered ok
in small organizations and it was the case of WMF in the past as well
(Michael was both controlling and doing the accounting).
If (when) chapters grow, they will have to separate roles, or at least
set up an independant audit.
Ant
Result: the management control himself, and this is
not correct.
After the choice to take management's members from board's members
it's clear that the management doesn't have the "memory" of Wikipedia
and without an "osmosis" between the management and the board this
"memory" cannot be easily reach.
Result: the risk is that the management cannot have the trust of the
community and the community cannot recognize the management.
Ilario
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My own
suggestion would be that a treasurer who is an
appointed Board member would need to face the electorate not less than
six nor more than eighteen months after that appointment. The six
months should be enough time for him to put his mark on the job, and
show that he can communicate with the general membership.
Why would an appointed member ever have to seek election? The point of
appointed members is to get people with specific skills the board
requires, the point of election is to get people that can represent
the community. They are distinct goals, and you shouldn't try and mix
them. (Of course, if a member of the community has the required skills
and can fulfil both roles, that's great.)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l