Post by jks55cpa on Feb 23, 2007 12:01:05 GMT -5
As author of the motion, I thought I would chime in here now. My reasoning for the motion had nothing to do with whether or not it was important for a director to attend meetings. I believe all directors take their position seriously and fully intend to attend all meetings during the term. It should also be mentioned for full disclosure purposes that I missed the last two consecutive meetings. However, that only got me thinking of the NSS Bylaw more directly. The board act states that if a director misses 3 meetings in a year, the BOG MAY dismiss the director and appoint someone else to take their place.
Typically, when a director is replaced, the appointee serves until the next election and does not necessarily have to have run previously, Usually, the previous election is only consulted when a director is replaced because they become an officer at convention when the new directors are also being installed.
My thought was that it was more important to allow the membership to retain ownership of their representatives than to allow the board the power to remove an elected Representative for any reason. I really believe it is unethical for the board to decide that someone is not serving up to their expectations. The precedence has been set with attendance, what will the next issue be? I would prefer it to be handled quietly by giving the director the opportunity to resign rather that to be expelled from the board. The only time I see the act being used is to achieve some other political goal. therefore I proposed eliminating the act. I am going to leave the motion on the agenda. I also feel that we should not use discussions outside the board meetings to replace discussion in an open meeting. The membership has the right to hear what the board is saying and the rational for their decisions. (Decisions should not be made behind closed doors or on private email.) Montana Spencer has been contacted and we hope board attendance for all board members will become a reporting item starting with the ballots in 2008.
Finally, credit should be given to Linda Devine for taking the lead on discussing this issue directly with the membership. Thanks Linda.
J Kevin Smith
Director
Typically, when a director is replaced, the appointee serves until the next election and does not necessarily have to have run previously, Usually, the previous election is only consulted when a director is replaced because they become an officer at convention when the new directors are also being installed.
My thought was that it was more important to allow the membership to retain ownership of their representatives than to allow the board the power to remove an elected Representative for any reason. I really believe it is unethical for the board to decide that someone is not serving up to their expectations. The precedence has been set with attendance, what will the next issue be? I would prefer it to be handled quietly by giving the director the opportunity to resign rather that to be expelled from the board. The only time I see the act being used is to achieve some other political goal. therefore I proposed eliminating the act. I am going to leave the motion on the agenda. I also feel that we should not use discussions outside the board meetings to replace discussion in an open meeting. The membership has the right to hear what the board is saying and the rational for their decisions. (Decisions should not be made behind closed doors or on private email.) Montana Spencer has been contacted and we hope board attendance for all board members will become a reporting item starting with the ballots in 2008.
Finally, credit should be given to Linda Devine for taking the lead on discussing this issue directly with the membership. Thanks Linda.
J Kevin Smith
Director