Greetings: Please see the bylaws here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws and CHapCom's questions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws. Kindly respond. Abbas.
I've posted some replies on the discussion page and made some amendments but Oscar/Stephen seem to be interested in a discussion prior to me making any necessary amendments. Let me just recap what ChapCom has said: 1. Most chapters have a minimum of 1 general meeting (exclusive of the AGM). 2. What happens if the members are unhappy about how the board is doing? It is in most chapters common that if x% of the members requires it, the board is forced to call an assembly. For example, if 10% of the members (also a quorum in this case) call for it.3. Is there a Special Resolution where members can remove a board member the whole Board?4. For Board members, what does two consecutive terms mean? Is it two terms in the same position (chair, treasurer etc) or two terms on the board?5. how are the different functions in the board distributed? Are the board members elected in funcion? (i.e. the General Meeting determines who becomes chairperson) Or are they elected as board member and then the board members elect in a similar way in their first meeting the chair person etc?6. If someone just doesn't pay fees, when will he/she no longer be a member? Usually bylaws have a clause saying something along the lines "if you didn't pay your dues for more than a year, and two reminders have been sent the board may remove membership from you".7. Under amendments, the 2/3 being spoken of here, is that 2/3 of the full number of members or 2/3 of the votes casted? For example, if there are 100 members, and there are 30 present at the General Meeting. Would the 2/3 be 67 votes or 20? I assume it is the same as for the Special Resolution. 8. When can a member be removed when he/she is behind too much with their dues. You could impose a minimum term, and then choose later that you use a larger one in practice.9. Budget. I see no explanation in the bylaws how the budget works (planned expenses for next year) - who proposes the budget (the board/treasurer/chair?), who approves it (the General Meeting?). Some way of budget approval also gives the members a good opportunity to actually control the board and influence what direction the association is really taking.10. Auditing. Especially when budgets get higher, but also in the beginning, it is good to have a continuous control of how money has been spent. Generally there are to me two well known ways to do this: through a professional audit (expensive!) and through an Audit Committee (a group of non-board members who will check the financial statements and books thoroughly before they are approved by the members). Either would report directly to the General Meeting and then the General Meeting could decide to approve the financial report or not. It might be however that this is already part of the law, so in that case pointing to that would be sufficient. ==My comments==I've put some of my comments on the discussion page, and will put others as we discuss the above ten points. What I want to talk about here is regarding Chris' suggestion of imposing a maximum term on Board Members. While he strongly advocated for it, I frankly believe that there should be no such restriction since we stand a chance of losing good Board Members just because their terms have expired. And since we are relatively few, with some of the current members already leaving or some inactive (for whatever reason) -- proving how hard it is to recruit and retain volunteers in Africa. If this clause stays, there might come a time where there aren't enough volunteers willing to commit themselves for a whole year. From what I've seen in other chapters is that there are relatively minor changes in the Board. Year after year, I see the same faces, maybe with two or three new faces. SincerelyAbbas.
From: abbasjnr@hotmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:09:05 +0000 Subject: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Greetings: Please see the bylaws here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws and CHapCom's questions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws. Kindly respond. Abbas.
_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Abbas, My concern was not discussing prior to responding to ChapCom.Rather I am afraid all of us may start responding anyhow and it may appear like we have different takes on the Bylaws as all of us have different and personal interpretations.I suggest YOU and only YOU be responsible to responding to ChapComs queries as the official WMKE take. The rest of us can discuss and offer our take and opinion on the mailing list so that whatever we agree on,you post/edit and respond to Chapcom
==My Comments== I would like too to agree with your take on the no. of terms Board Members can serve.This is a vuluntary movement and as much we would like to embrace the ideals of democracy,a few exceptions are necessary.For instance not all of us dedicate as much effort to WMKE.As such any board member should be allowed to run for as many terms s/he wishes as long as his.her achievements and dedication speak for them-self
About Members being in a position to remove board members and call for a meeting,I think we should include it in and go with the ChapCom's Suggestion of Qouram being able to call for a special meeting/election. About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth.... Regards,
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
I've posted some replies on the discussion page and made some amendments but Oscar/Stephen seem to be interested in a discussion prior to me making any necessary amendments. Let me just recap what ChapCom has said:
- Most chapters have a minimum of 1 general meeting (exclusive of the AGM).
- What happens if the members are unhappy about how the board is doing? It
is in most chapters common that if x% of the members requires it, the board is forced to call an assembly. For example, if 10% of the members (also a quorum in this case) call for it.3. Is there a Special Resolution where members can remove a board member the whole Board?4. For Board members, what does two consecutive terms mean? Is it two terms in the same position (chair, treasurer etc) or two terms on the board?5. how are the different functions in the board distributed? Are the board members elected in funcion? (i.e. the General Meeting determines who becomes chairperson) Or are they elected as board member and then the board members elect in a similar way in their first meeting the chair person etc?6. If someone just doesn't pay fees, when will he/she no longer be a member? Usually bylaws have a clause saying something along the lines "if you didn't pay your dues for more than a year, and two reminders have been sent the board may remove membership from you".7. Under amendments, the 2/3 being spoken of here, is that 2/3 of the full number of members or 2/3 of the votes casted? For example, if there are 100 members, and there are 30 present at the General Meeting. Would the 2/3 be 67 votes or 20? I assume it is the same as for the Special Resolution. 8. When can a member be removed when he/she is behind too much with their dues. You could impose a minimum term, and then choose later that you use a larger one in practice.9. Budget. I see no explanation in the bylaws how the budget works (planned expenses for next year) - who proposes the budget (the board/treasurer/chair?), who approves it (the General Meeting?). Some way of budget approval also gives the members a good opportunity to actually control the board and influence what direction the association is really taking.10. Auditing. Especially when budgets get higher, but also in the beginning, it is good to have a continuous control of how money has been spent. Generally there are to me two well known ways to do this: through a professional audit (expensive!) and through an Audit Committee (a group of non-board members who will check the financial statements and books thoroughly before they are approved by the members). Either would report directly to the General Meeting and then the General Meeting could decide to approve the financial report or not. It might be however that this is already part of the law, so in that case pointing to that would be sufficient. ==My comments==I've put some of my comments on the discussion page, and will put others as we discuss the above ten points. What I want to talk about here is regarding Chris' suggestion of imposing a maximum term on Board Members. While he strongly advocated for it, I frankly believe that there should be no such restriction since we stand a chance of losing good Board Members just because their terms have expired. And since we are relatively few, with some of the current members already leaving or some inactive (for whatever reason) -- proving how hard it is to recruit and retain volunteers in Africa. If this clause stays, there might come a time where there aren't enough volunteers willing to commit themselves for a whole year. From what I've seen in other chapters is that there are relatively minor changes in the Board. Year after year, I see the same faces, maybe with two or three new faces. SincerelyAbbas.
From: abbasjnr@hotmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 08:09:05 +0000 Subject: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Greetings: Please see the bylaws here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws and CHapCom's questions: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Kenya/bylaws. Kindly respond. Abbas.
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
Abbas, I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a position to serve. Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
We should let the electorate decide who they want to be the chairperson,secretary, vice and so forth unlike when the board members are left to the task.
About having too many volunteers vying for one post and having only one vying for another is quite 'normal'. I believe the many who go for a certain post e.g. treasurer would probably not settle for another post in the board. And again, the board may choose a candidate who is not a representative who the members want at the post.
The board should be a representation of the members voices.
For instance, Our student council at JKUAT, the vice and secretary general were elected unopposed since they did not have opponents whereas the chairmans position had 5 contestants, the finance docket had 3 contestants e.t.c. They were sworn in with no squalms since the rest of the students body had been given a window period to submit nomination papers-which they didnt.I hope am clear.
Cheers
Stephen W. Wanjau
On Jul 13, 2011 8:05 PM, "Limoke Oscar" oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas, I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a position to serve. Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5
people
vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the
Secretary
post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of
them
could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won.
What
I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for
their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Stephen, Oscar,
Oh, sawa. Speaking of students council, that's what happens at strath as well. Thanks for clarifying.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:37:48 +0300 From: wanjaustev@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
We should let the electorate decide who they want to be the chairperson,secretary, vice and so forth unlike when the board members are left to the task.
About having too many volunteers vying for one post and having only one vying for another is quite 'normal'. I believe the many who go for a certain post e.g. treasurer would probably not settle for another post in the board. And again, the board may choose a candidate who is not a representative who the members want at the post.
The board should be a representation of the members voices.
For instance, Our student council at JKUAT, the vice and secretary general were elected unopposed since they did not have opponents whereas the chairmans position had 5 contestants, the finance docket had 3 contestants e.t.c. They were sworn in with no squalms since the rest of the students body had been given a window period to submit nomination papers-which they didnt.I hope am clear.
Cheers
Stephen W. Wanjau
On Jul 13, 2011 8:05 PM, "Limoke Oscar" oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas, I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a position to serve. Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
So shall we resume to our discussion to the ten points ChapCom raised? Just so you know, I've left ChapCom hanging, so the sooner we agree on these points, the sooner we get our approval :) Let me start with the 1st 3 Q's:1. Most chapters have a minimum of 1 general meeting (exclusive of the AGM). 2. What happens if the members are unhappy about how the board is doing? It is in most chapters common that if x% of the members requires it, the board is forced to call an assembly. For example, if 10% of the members (also a quorum in this case) call for it.3. Is there a Special Resolution where members can remove a board member the whole Board? ==My response==1. In the initial bylaws, we had indicated a min. of 3 meetings. As a compromise, I am willing to accept 2 meetings minimum (1 regular meeting + 1 general meeting.) 2 &3. I agree with points 2 and 3. I think that members should have the right to remove the Board if dissatisfied. I'll just give you a rough recap of what happened at Wikimedia Deutschland: xx% of the members got together and stated that they wanted to have a special assembly, with a vote of no confidence as a topic. They succeeded in getting the required percentage for that (I don't know the percentage exactly, but it probably was around 10% of 500 members). During the assembly however, they did not get enough votes to pass the motion of no confidence - the motion was rejected (I believe with a convincing majority). Note that a minority can call an assembly for issues they deem important, but cannot take major decisions without the majority agreeing. By the way, there is a slight difference between a motion of no confidence (which then should be interpreted by the board but could technically be ignored) and a motion to excuse the board and hold new elections. The second is with most chapters more common (and is afaik actually the case in Germany too). Abbas.
From: abbasjnr@hotmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:47:21 +0000 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Stephen, Oscar,
Oh, sawa. Speaking of students council, that's what happens at strath as well. Thanks for clarifying.
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 20:37:48 +0300 From: wanjaustev@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
We should let the electorate decide who they want to be the chairperson,secretary, vice and so forth unlike when the board members are left to the task.
About having too many volunteers vying for one post and having only one vying for another is quite 'normal'. I believe the many who go for a certain post e.g. treasurer would probably not settle for another post in the board. And again, the board may choose a candidate who is not a representative who the members want at the post.
The board should be a representation of the members voices.
For instance, Our student council at JKUAT, the vice and secretary general were elected unopposed since they did not have opponents whereas the chairmans position had 5 contestants, the finance docket had 3 contestants e.t.c. They were sworn in with no squalms since the rest of the students body had been given a window period to submit nomination papers-which they didnt.I hope am clear.
Cheers
Stephen W. Wanjau
On Jul 13, 2011 8:05 PM, "Limoke Oscar" oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas, I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a position to serve. Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
_______________________________________________ WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
My two cents, just out of personal experience (definitely not a Foundation position!) --
I think Abbas's suggestion is more practical. Pick the group of people who would (collectively) provide the best leadership for WMKE, and let them figure out what division of labor within the board makes sense to them. My experience in NGOs (I have founded 2 and been a board member in 4) is that that is the best way to get good results.
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Limoke Oscar oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas, I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a position to serve. Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5
people
vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the
Secretary
post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of
them
could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won.
What
I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for
their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la creme to be on the Board. Abbas.
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Yay, to Asaf! At least I got someone to back me up :)
From: abartov@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:39:14 -0700 To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
My two cents, just out of personal experience (definitely not a Foundation position!) -- I think Abbas's suggestion is more practical. Pick the group of people who would (collectively) provide the best leadership for WMKE, and let them figure out what division of labor within the board makes sense to them. My experience in NGOs (I have founded 2 and been a board member in 4) is that that is the best way to get good results.
Cheers, Asaf
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Limoke Oscar oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas,
I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not
interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a
position to serve.
Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this
cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300
From: oslimoke@gmail.com
To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position
based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people
vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary
post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them
could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What
I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their
respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la
creme to be on the Board.
Abbas.
--
Limoke Oscar,
mayenge.blogspot.com
Freelancer,
GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
_______________________________________________
WikimediaKE mailing list
WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Since we are a Voluntary NGO I think your experience and opinion moves me.The Board members will be volunteering and as such I hope we won't have much feud over positions as the "Bigger" the position,the more work is involved...I agree lets elect Board members as A Block and then they can sort among themselves... Cheers
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Yay, to Asaf! At least I got someone to back me up :)
From: abartov@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:39:14 -0700 To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
My two cents, just out of personal experience (definitely not a Foundation position!) -- I think Abbas's suggestion is more practical. Pick the group of people who would (collectively) provide the best leadership for WMKE, and let them figure out what division of labor within the board makes sense to them. My experience in NGOs (I have founded 2 and been a board member in 4) is that that is the best way to get good results.
Cheers, Asaf
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Limoke Oscar oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas,
I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not
interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a
position to serve.
Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this
cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300
From: oslimoke@gmail.com
To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position
based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people
vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary
post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them
could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What
I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their
respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la
creme to be on the Board.
Abbas.
--
Limoke Oscar,
mayenge.blogspot.com
Freelancer,
GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list
WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Yesterday, Stephen and I had a chat and we agreed on: A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance. However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to remove a director, or the whole Board. --Abbas.
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:15:26 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Since we are a Voluntary NGO I think your experience and opinion moves me.The Board members will be volunteering and as such I hope we won't have much feud over positions as the "Bigger" the position,the more work is involved...I agree lets elect Board members as A Block and then they can sort among themselves... Cheers
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Yay, to Asaf! At least I got someone to back me up :)
From: abartov@wikimedia.org Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 13:39:14 -0700 To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
My two cents, just out of personal experience (definitely not a Foundation position!) -- I think Abbas's suggestion is more practical. Pick the group of people who would (collectively) provide the best leadership for WMKE, and let them figure out what division of labor within the board makes sense to them. My experience in NGOs (I have founded 2 and been a board member in 4) is that that is the best way to get good results.
Cheers, Asaf
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Limoke Oscar oslimoke@gmail.com wrote:
Abbas,
I think someone would vie for a post s/he thinks he can comfortably
serve.I mean I wouldnt say vie for a secretary if am not
interestde.Let someone choose a position s/he thinks he is in a
position to serve.
Another drawback is that how would the 'creme de le creme' decide
amongst themselves who should be chair,vice ans staff?wouldn't this
cause some cold blood and tension among themselves?
On 7/13/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Oscar,
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:37:57 +0300
From: oslimoke@gmail.com
To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
About Electing the Board,members should be electing a position
based.i.e electing X for the post of Chairperson and so forth....
Erm, I think this type of method has a disadvantage: for instance, 5 people
vie for the Chairperson seat and maybe only 1 person vies for the Secretary
post; definitely, the Secretary will get elected; since (s)he has no
competitor, and maybe out of the 4 that lost the Chair's seat, one of them
could have been a better Board member than the secretary who had won. What
I'm trying to say is that i think it's better for voters to vote for their
best top 5 candidates; and the Board members will later on delegate their
respective positions themselves. By doing so, we will get the creme de la
creme to be on the Board.
Abbas.
--
Limoke Oscar,
mayenge.blogspot.com
Freelancer,
GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list
WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
-- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Hi, Find below my take/response to ChapCom's questions: 1. Most chapters have a minimum of 1 general meeting (exclusive of the AGM). I agree with 2 as Abbas put it.
2. What happens if the members are unhappy about how the board is doing? It is in most chapters common that if x% of the members requires it, the board is forced to call an assembly. For example, if 10% of the members (also a quorum in this case) call for it..3. Is there a Special Resolution where members can remove a board member the whole Board?
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
4. For Board members,
what does two consecutive terms mean? Is it two terms in the same position (chair, treasurer etc) or two terms on the board?
I think we should do away with the num,ber of terms.Anyone is eligible to vie as aboard members as many times as possible. 5. how are the different
functions in the board distributed? Are the board members elected in funcion? (i.e. the General Meeting determines who becomes chairperson) Or are they elected as board member and then the board members elect in a similar way in their first meeting the chair person etc?
We elect the Board Membres as a Block then from amongst the block they distribute amongst themselves how and who will do/be what.If our board needs 5Members,the top 5 viers of the Board qualify to be the New Board.
However my reservation would be what if in the next term say a board member X who has been serving as Vice-Chair now wishes to serve as Chair??
.9. Budget. I see no explanation
in the bylaws how the budget works (planned expenses for next year) - who proposes the budget (the board/treasurer/chair?), who approves it (the General Meeting?). Some way of budget approval also gives the members a good opportunity to actually control the board and influence what direction the association is really taking.
The Treasurer should be preparing a budget based on estimates provide/discussed by the Board.The Budget then presented to Members to approve/reject/alter the same....
10. Auditing. Especially when budgets get
higher, but also in the beginning, it is good to have a continuous control of how money has been spent. Generally there are to me two well known ways to do this: through a professional audit (expensive!) and through an Audit Committee (a group of non-board members who will check the financial statements and books thoroughly before they are approved by the members). Either would report directly to the General Meeting and then the General Meeting could decide to approve the financial report or not. It might be however that this is already part of the law, so in that case pointing to that would be sufficient.
I suggest we adopt the Kenyan Parliament System where we will have various committees in Charge of various aspects.The one in Charge of Audit will be responsible for our audit and expenditure...
Regards, Limoke
Oscar,
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:05:45 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures? 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the 6 members = 4 members So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2 members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only considered valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of the board should be supported by at least 4 members? If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I borrow precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier upthread) where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members is not a majority.
- For Board members,
what does two consecutive terms mean? Is it two terms in the same position (chair, treasurer etc) or two terms on the board?
I think we should do away with the num,ber of terms.Anyone is eligible to vie as aboard members as many times as possible. 5. how are the different
functions in the board distributed? Are the board members elected in funcion? (i.e. the General Meeting determines who becomes chairperson) Or are they elected as board member and then the board members elect in a similar way in their first meeting the chair person etc?
We elect the Board Membres as a Block then from amongst the block they distribute amongst themselves how and who will do/be what.If our board needs 5Members,the top 5 viers of the Board qualify to be the New Board.
However my reservation would be what if in the next term say a board member X who has been serving as Vice-Chair now wishes to serve as Chair??
Once we as members have elected the 5 Board members, it will up to the Board Members to decide how they'll select themselves in whatever way they wish. Whether they'll carry out another secret ballot to select themselves or they'll toss a coin is up to them.
.9. Budget. I see no explanation
in the bylaws how the budget works (planned expenses for next year) - who proposes the budget (the board/treasurer/chair?), who approves it (the General Meeting?). Some way of budget approval also gives the members a good opportunity to actually control the board and influence what direction the association is really taking.
The Treasurer should be preparing a budget based on estimates provide/discussed by the Board.The Budget then presented to Members to approve/reject/alter the same....
Agreed. Although, in the foreseeable future, I don't think we'll be having significant amount of cash in hand for us to prepare and plan an annual budget
- Auditing. Especially when budgets get
higher, but also in the beginning, it is good to have a continuous control of how money has been spent. Generally there are to me two well known ways to do this: through a professional audit (expensive!) and through an Audit Committee (a group of non-board members who will check the financial statements and books thoroughly before they are approved by the members). Either would report directly to the General Meeting and then the General Meeting could decide to approve the financial report or not. It might be however that this is already part of the law, so in that case pointing to that would be sufficient.
I suggest we adopt the Kenyan Parliament System where we will have various committees in Charge of various aspects.The one in Charge of Audit will be responsible for our audit and expenditure...
Yes. That's what various chapters and the Foundation does as well. In fact, I think it's in one of the articles that states that the board has the authority to appoint a committee as and when it deems necessary.
Abbas.
Abbas,
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures? 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the 6 members = 4 members So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2 members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only considered valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of the board should be supported by at least 4 members? If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I borrow precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier upthread) where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members is not a majority.
Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the % were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards?? Regards,
Here's what Stephen and I suggested: A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance. However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to remove a director, or the whole Board. Abbas.
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:20:55 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Abbas,
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures? 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the 6 members = 4 members So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2 members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only considered valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of the board should be supported by at least 4 members? If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I borrow precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier upthread) where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members is not a majority.
Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the % were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards?? Regards,
-- Limoke Oscar,
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Abbas, I agree with that.Lets adopt it. Any more queries?
On 7/16/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's what Stephen and I suggested: A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance. However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to remove a director, or the whole Board. Abbas.
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:20:55 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Abbas,
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures? 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the 6 members = 4 members So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2 members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only considered valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of the board should be supported by at least 4 members? If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I borrow precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier upthread) where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members is not a majority.
Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the % were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards?? Regards,
-- Limoke Oscar,
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
Erm, I think we forgot no.6: 6. If someone just doesn't pay fees, when will he/she no longer be a member? Usually bylaws have a clause saying something along the lines "if you didn't pay your dues for more than a year, and two reminders have been sent the board may remove membership from you". My opinion is that if you haven't paid the membership fees, you aren't considered as a member so we wouldn't have to "remove membership" from you in the first place. This, of course, doesn't mean that such a person is not allowed to attend meetings, etc but what he can not do is vote. I also suggest that members should also be given priority over non-members when it comes to participating in projects. (e.g., it would be unfair to take a non-member to Mombasa for the Wikipedia for Schools project when there was a member who wanted to go.)
Abbas.
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:26:07 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Abbas, I agree with that.Lets adopt it. Any more queries?
On 7/16/11, Abbas Mahmood abbasjnr@hotmail.com wrote:
Here's what Stephen and I suggested: A minimum of one third of the members can call for a Special Resolution Meeting, with notice given to all members at least 7 days in advance. However, a majority of two thirds of the members' votes shall be required to remove a director, or the whole Board. Abbas.
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 16:20:55 +0300 From: oslimoke@gmail.com To: wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia Kenya] Bylaws: ChapCom's Comments
Abbas,
I suggest we say 10% of the members can call for a "Special Meeting" to express a vote of no confidence in the board.However such a vote should only be considered valid if atleast 30% of the members partake in it and that the voting out of the board/resolution should be supported by 50% +1 of the voting members(i.e the 30% present)....
May I try to interpret what you are saying in actual figures? 10% of ~20 members = 2 members.30% of ~20 members = 6 members51% of the 6 members = 4 members So therefore in simpler terms, what you are saying is that at least 2 members can call for a Special Resolution and the vote is only considered valid if at least 6 members partake in the voting and the voting out of the board should be supported by at least 4 members? If this is what you are implying, I disagree with it. Once again, I borrow precedence from Wikimedia Deutschland's case (mentioned earlier upthread) where they require a majority to remove the Board. 6 out of 20 members is not a majority.
Your interpretation is correct.And yes that's my thought and the % were arbitrary.We could revise them upwards.Plus am considering the fact that definitely not all members will be present nor would partake in the elections.Maybe we revise the % upwards?? Regards,
-- Limoke Oscar,
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
-- Limoke Oscar, mayenge.blogspot.com Freelancer, GeoInformatics and GIScience Student
WikimediaKE mailing list WikimediaKE@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediake
wikimediake@lists.wikimedia.org