[Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

[Nathan]

>
> I am concerned that trying to include them in that kind of process
> wouldn't work due to the very flexible nature of such organisations.
> "One Chapter - One Vote" is problematic as it is (eg. chapters
> represent geographies of very different sizes, have very different
> numbers of members, very different budgets, very different levels of
> activity, some represent countries while others represent small
> geographies [is it right that the US should get two votes just because
> they can't get their acts together and form a national chapter?]).
> Those problems would be even greater for Partner Organisations (would
> an organisation set up to work on a very general topic like "History"
> be entitled to equal representation with one set up to work on a very
> specific topic like "Submarines"?). It might make sense to let them
> participate in discussions, but trying to give them votes just isn't
> going to work.
>
>
The simplest solution is to remove the Chapters from their role in electing
members of the Board. There will always be disparities between chapters -
in funding, representation, organization, professionalism, activity, etc.
The concept of Chapter elected Board seats will only become more fraught.
Thomas' comment about the U.S. is a perfect harbinger of things to come -
international balance of power concerns mixed with a smug insult predicated
on ignorance.