[Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

With all the talk about who is willing and unwilling to be on the board, it  
may be worthwhile to get a precise description of what board membership  
entails. It is *not* a step up in some imaginary hierarchy--admin, bureacrat,  
steward, board member. Far from it. 
 
First and foremost, being on the Board implies fiduciary *responsibility,*  
i.e., if the Foundation gets sued, it is the Board members that they will come  
after. 
 
It is the ability to exercise oversight, particularly financial oversight.  
Are we going to spend half a million dollars on bandwidth or hardware, and if  
so, why, i.e., are the monies entrusted to the Foundation being used  
responsibly?
 
For more information, see _http://www.boardsource.org/_ 
(http://www.boardsource.org/) . And no. When  dealing with legal issues or an audit, the Board 
cannot argue that it is is  "creating a new organizational model." 
 
I hope all the self-proclaimed candidates have asked themselves whether  they 
really meet these criteria. Furthermore, I would hope that the current  Board 
vets any candidates in advance regarding their previous experience--and I  
don't mean organizing their fraternity/sorority beer fund.
 
Danny