On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM, AndrewRT
<andrewrturvey@googlemail.com> wrote:
[...]
One aspect which might be putting people off is the frequency and
length of the Board meetings we've been having to date. The initial
Board has met 23 times so far (nearly once per week on average) often
for 3 hours or more. Whilst this is probably necessary when we're
getting things sorted out, I'd like to suggest that the next board has
shorter and less frequent meetings. I think meeting once per month for
no more than 2 hours would be ideal, so that it's not too much of a
burdon on Board members and we avoid burning our volunteers out. At
the same time we can change the Board into more of an "oversight"
role, and do more "organising" work outside.
If the situation requires frequent and long board meetings, that is what must be done. However, once everything is up and running one can hope that board meetings may be less frequent and shorter. Still, if they are required to meet more often then though be it. I wouldn't like to see the board limit it's meetings to a certain frequency and duration out of convenience and then leave things open for discussion until the next meeting. Anybody standing for a board should be aware of that.
It's surprising what you can acheive when working to a strict
deadline, and our productivity does tend to dive after a couple of
hours.
That is true!
Hopefully this will also encourage people who are thinking of putting
their names forward but are put off by the commitment of meetings.
I hope that such measures don't have to be taken to encourage to stand for the board of an organisation and that the level of commitment needed is known in advance.
What do others think?
It's ashame when an organisation has sufficient members, but not enough who are willing to commit to standing for the board. I am currently not (yet!) a member of the UK chapter, mainly due to geographic location and time in sorting out the paper work. >From past experience in working and organising in other non-profit organisations I can say that often there are enough members who would be willing to stand, but many don't put themselves forward for such a position themselves and need to be asked. I'm not too sure why this is, but maybe the existing board members could contact and talk to a few potential candidates.
Ian