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