On 6/11/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

Start with the Q&A's and work your way through the site. This is not about attending seminars. This is about the basic responsibilities of Board members.

There's a Q&A on the "Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards". I won't quote it all here, but they include determining and communicating the mission, choosing and overseeing a chief executive, overseeing financials, and maintaining accountability.

I'd say that while the board chair should probably have extensive experience, for the most part the main qualifications of the other board members are moral integrity and a committment to the goals of the organization. I guess I'd add in lack of hubris. So long as a board member knows she's not an expert in something and is willing to ask for outside help, I think she'll be just fine. As the site says, "Much of the work that a board does is accomplished through its committees and task forces. With the exception of the Executive Committee, which acts on the board's behalf, committees recommend action to the full board for discussion and action." I'd say it's these committees and and task forces that really need the experts. If the experts can also serve on the board, even better, but I don't see why it's required. When it comes down to it, the main thing that's done by the board outside of a committee is that they discuss and vote.

I also see a question about whether or not the Chief Staff Executive should be a member of the board. The answer mentions how "some feel that board membership blurs the distinction between the board's responsibilities and the executive's responsibilities and makes it difficult for the board to assess the executive's performance objectively." Sounds like the situation Wikimedia has itself in right now.

Anthony

Anthony DiPierro wrote:

On 6/11/06, daniwo59@aol.com daniwo59@aol.com wrote:

...

Start with the Q&A's and work your way through the site. This is not about attending seminars. This is about the basic responsibilities of Board members.

There's a Q&A on the "Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards". I won't quote it all here, but they include determining and communicating the mission, choosing and overseeing a chief executive, overseeing financials, and maintaining accountability.

I'd say that while the board chair should probably have extensive experience, for the most part the main qualifications of the other board members are moral integrity and a committment to the goals of the organization. I guess I'd add in lack of hubris. So long as a board member knows she's not an expert in something and is willing to ask for outside help, I think she'll be just fine. As the site says, "Much of the work that a board does is accomplished through its committees and task forces. With the exception of the Executive Committee, which acts on the board's behalf, committees recommend action to the full board for discussion and action." I'd say it's these committees and and task forces that really need the experts. If the experts can also serve on the board, even better, but I don't see why it's required. When it comes down to it, the main thing that's done by the board outside of a committee is that they discuss and vote.

I also see a question about whether or not the Chief Staff Executive should be a member of the board. The answer mentions how "some feel that board membership blurs the distinction between the board's responsibilities and the executive's responsibilities and makes it difficult for the board to assess the executive's performance objectively." Sounds like the situation Wikimedia has itself in right now.

Anthony

See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Description_of_board_members_jobs

I strongly believe the CEO should not be on the board. It seems to make sense in small organisations, but I would say it is not suitable in our case.

Doubly when the CEO is not only on the board, but also the chair of that board.

And triply (if that term exist) when the CEO not only is the chair of the board, but also the foundator of the leading project.

It raises the issue of 1) suitability of the CEO (not chosen per his executive abilities in the first place) 2) availability of the CEO for day to day tasks 3) performance assessment of the CEO (since he is giving tasks to himself and assessing his performance himself) 4) Relevance of the board existence

ant

Just in case anyone might misunderstand the following as suggesting a conflict between Anthere and myself, I agree with her completely on all points. :)

Anthere wrote:

I strongly believe the CEO should not be on the board. It seems to make sense in small organisations, but I would say it is not suitable in our case.

Doubly when the CEO is not only on the board, but also the chair of that board.

And triply (if that term exist) when the CEO not only is the chair of the board, but also the foundator of the leading project.

It raises the issue of

1. suitability of the CEO (not chosen per his executive abilities in the

first place) 2) availability of the CEO for day to day tasks 3) performance assessment of the CEO (since he is giving tasks to himself and assessing his performance himself) 4) Relevance of the board existence

ant

---

foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

In-Reply-To: 71cd4dd90606110738l6e379ad8we749531c58ed9bda@mail.gmail.com On 6/11/06 Anthony DiPierro wrote in part:

"Moral integrity" probably isn't the term I was looking for. I should have left it as "integrity".

Errrr.... The only issue with the phrase "Moral integrity" is its redundancy! Or did you mean something else??

Z.Clark