If I understand it correctly, we will now have:
1. board appointed trustees who will derive from chapters recommendations.
2. board appointed trustees who will derive from a nomination committee headed by Sue and containing two trustees (minimum) and any number of others.
3. board appointed trustees who will derive from some form of community election managed by a board election administrative committee.
3. board appointed trustees who will derive directly from the board itself (to replace resigned board members during their term).
I have a few questions :-)
* * *
First, what precisely is the way in which it is decided who will serve on Sues nomination committee?
Will the workings of it be public? In part, in whole, or not at all?
Will the committee internally operate by vote, or is it merely there to advise Sue on how to choose who to recommend to the board?
* * *
Secondly, would it be a good idea to either formalize as some form of resolution or bylaw that when the board directly appoints a replacement to a community election derived trustee, that the replacement would be in some form "of like demeanour".
This is a vague and open question, but I will leave it that way, deliberately, to allow a wide range of approaches of responding to it. 8-)
* * *
Lastly, is it conceivable that we may have a situation whereby Sues committee will have returned its recommendations before the chapters have returned theirs and the trustees derived from Sues committees recommendations will decide on whether or not to appoint whoever the chapters recommend?
That is, to drive the point of the question to the ground; is it possible that "experts" will ratify the selection of community trustees (accepting here implicitly that chapter recommended board appointed trustees are community trustees)?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen