|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Feb 14, 2007 1:20:07 GMT -5
(A repost from NSS Director Linda Devine requesting opinions via a follow up poll. It is fine for anyone to discuss the poll or their opinion on the forum, but Linda is not on the forum and I'm sure she would appreciate receiving poll answers via private email. Email addresses for Directors can be found under Current Personnel.) Follow-up poll re BOG meeting attendance - your opinion would be appreciated!Fellow cavers, First of all, THANK YOU SO MUCH for all of the responses I have received to my request for input re NSS Board of Governors meeting attendance. I really appreciated the time you took to write and share your views. As your emails were pouring in to me, the BOG internally was continuing its ongoing discussion of this topic. What I did was to take your input, summarize it, and then send it on to the Board. Tonight, as I sat down at the computer to start the process of acknowledging your individual emails, I received a message from the board member who had proposed the motion that originally had sparked this discussion. He asked me if I would conduct another poll, which I am happy to do. Again, the BOG and I would be grateful for your responses. Any additional comments would be welcome from you, but brief answers to the following questions would suffice: 1. (a) Should the BOG have the ability to remove a director if he/she fails to attend 3 Board meetings in a year [there are precisely 3 in any 12-month time frame], or (b) should it be left up to the NSS membership to decide, through voting, whether or not to replace the director the next time he/she is up for reelection? ( Please select (a) or (b).) 2. Should the meeting attendance record be reported for all directors on the election ballot? ( Please answer yes, no, or not necessary.) If any of you are members of other lists and would like to forward this poll, that would be great. Meredith - thank you for forwarding my original email to BATS, and please feel free to forward this one as well. Sharon (Faulkner) - I don't know from what list you received my first post, but please feel free to forward this poll as you feel appropriate. Thank you all once again! Linda Baker Devine NSS Director
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 14, 2007 9:29:07 GMT -5
Thanks Sharon.
Hun?... there was a first BOG Poll? Where? Online? Mail? Email? This seems to be an important issue but I have not received a poll in the mail yet. Has any one else received one?
|
|
|
Post by madratdan on Feb 14, 2007 10:00:52 GMT -5
We've had this problem before in the Williams Canyon Project. I can see missing one meeting, but I don't understand why someone who decides to be a BOG member would want to send a proxy to every meeting for them? It must be work or health related. Anyone know which BOG member they are talking about?
Here is what it says in the Williams Canyon Charter. Remember we don't have to travel too far for meeting, but we don't put up with someone missing meetings either. Granted just because a BOD member misses one of our meetings, we don't imediately replace them, but the rule is in place in case we need to. Here is what it states.
16. Members of the Project Board of Directors mu st attend a minimum of two of the three regularly scheduled Project meetings each year. Board members who miss more than one meeting will be considered absent and a proxy will not be permitted. The Board will notify the representative’s chapter of the National Speleological Society of the Board member’s absence. The Board will request a special election to designate a new representative if a Board member misses more than one meeting annually. The Board will notify the Cave of the Winds management if one of their appointed directors misses more than one meeting per year and request consideration of a replacement Director.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Feb 14, 2007 10:19:16 GMT -5
Hi guys, No, no first poll....Sorry, I should have been clearer in my post above. Linda had sent an email out that to paraphrase asked for opinions from NSS members regarding how important they felt Board members attendance at Board of Governors meetings was to you (the NSS member). She did not give a blanket permission to repost that message to other caving forums as she did with the message I posted above.
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 14, 2007 10:57:33 GMT -5
Thanks for clearing that up Sharon. I thought I had somehow missed an important Poll. I must say it is rather refreshing to see a BOG member take a more active roll and seek the opinions of NSS members.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 14, 2007 11:02:09 GMT -5
Time to rev up my controversial engines... here we go... Well, I have to respond to this because I understand a little bit from the time I proxied for a BOG member. It looks to me like they (or she) is trying to decide if an elected board member may be kicked out by other board members for not showing up to a year's worth of BOG meetings. From what I saw while I was doing my proxy, the BOG do a lot more than just meet three times a year. They are in constant contact through their email group and are always discussing things through emails received every day. I think I got about 10 emails every day through their group, so that is a lot more work than I had thought it was. I feel strongly that the BOG should not be allowed to kick out one of their own members because of missing three or all of the meetings. Proxies HAVE to vote the way the BOG member wants them to. Therefore, the BOG member is still voting at the meeting. All of the issues seem to be discussed (to the tenth degree) by the time you even get to the meeting, and I think the BOG member who is missing the meeting is well informed enough to know how they want to vote, and has plenty of time to instruct their proxy how to vote. Also, when you are a director, you have to spend your own money for plane tickets, and take time off of work for these things. Its very understandable that things come up - money issues, work issues, family issues. These people are volunteers, and would not want to risk their job, family, etc. to go to a volunteer meeting. I do not think this means they are less devoted to the NSS than the folks that seem to have enough money, time, no family, etc. This may be seen as putting a big limit on the people who could run for the BOG. Heck I'd consider running if I didn't have to go to those darn meetings! Finally, not going to a BOG meeting means you can elect a local caver to proxy, who may not have gone to the meeting before. This seems to be one of the major avenues the BOG has to entice people to serving on the BOG and/or running for director. I don't think having to have a proxy should be seen as a bad thing. The directors are elected by the NSS members, and I don't think the BOG should have a say in if they remain in office or not. Its difficult enough finding people to run for the BOG, lets not run one these people off just because of in attendance at meetings! -Kelly
|
|
|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Feb 14, 2007 11:38:24 GMT -5
Kelly, you brought up some very valid points that I hadn't thought of. Gives me pause to rethink my first thoughts on the subject. That's why I like these discussions, Thanks!
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 14, 2007 13:06:16 GMT -5
Kelly, always bring us good points. So as it now stands.....let's say I ran for the BOG and were elected. As a BOG Director I could skip all the meetings each year and just send a proxy. Hey Kelly well it looks like you could run for BOG now since this loophole seems to allow the proxy to be sent to all the meetings and the Director does not have to show up. But hummm....something about that loophole just seems wrong to me. Afterall, the BOG Director was elected to serve not the proxy.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 14, 2007 14:25:28 GMT -5
Hmm. I think there actually is something in the NSS rules that a BOG member must show up to a certain number of meetings per term or year (not sure), but it looks like if a BOG does not show up for these, there is no way to deal with what happens next. That may be what they are trying to deal with. I looked on the NSS web site to see if anyone has actually not showed up for three meetings in a row lately. The meeting minutes on line are a little old (don't include last November yet), but I didn't notice any BOG member missing even more than one meeting.
I agree that on the surface it sounds a little odd to never show up to the meetings, but honestly in this day and age of computers, cell phones, teleconferencing, and all, is it really necessary to have an antiquated meeting? Especially when it is all volunteer based and is usually a FAR and EXPENSIVE distance away from where you live.
Perhaps in the case of the William's Canyon Project, SERA, and the like, it is more reasonable to expect people to show up for the meetings because they all live nearby, but this is a little different if only for the cost and time it takes to travel.
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 14, 2007 15:38:33 GMT -5
I had to go take a quick peek at the rules. caves.org/nss-business/bog/section4.htmlIt just says "Directors are expected to attend each meeting of the Board of Governors or the Directorate". It does not say Directors are required to attend meetings or even X number of meetings. . Yeap that sounds like a loophole if any one had the inclination to abuse it. Some grotto's even require you to not miss a certain portion of the meetings. I do understand about the travel, expenses, time off work, etc for BOG members who would have to travel to the other side of the U.S. for some meetings. But I also see that it would not seem unreasonable to require Directors to attend at least a certain portion of meeting each year to prevent a member from just skipping the whole year. IMHO, having the meeting attendance record reported for all directors would be something I would be interested in.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 14, 2007 15:57:47 GMT -5
Ah! It looks like you have found the problem right there in the rules. The directors are expected to attend ALL ("each") of the meetings. Yet, clearly they do not follow this since there is a proxy system in place. I agree - BIG loophole!! This rule has been so loosly followed, and many people have been allowed to not attend many meetings (though I can't find where anyone has missed two in a row). It seems to me that before they can make a rule to kick someone out for not attending any number of meetings, they should at least decide how many they have to attend, put that number in the rules, then strictly follow that rule. Until they do that, this loophole will always be there.
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 14, 2007 16:25:31 GMT -5
Well maybe they noticed the loophole and some general housekeeping is happening? But I do agree, they should decide how many meetings they will have to attend each year first . And then second create provisions for dealing with a member who does not abide by the rules. Thanks Kelly -I always enjoy hearing your point of view!
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Feb 14, 2007 17:27:32 GMT -5
Heck, if I didn't have to attend meetings, I would run for the BOG! I've already responded to Linda Devine. Kelly, as someone who has been on two different state caving boards, I disagree that technology trumps real in the flesh meetings. People are nicer to each other in person. Even people who basically don't agree. Teleconferences are pretty much chaos-- the loudest, fastest, most persistent person tends to dominate such interactions, as there isn't anyone raising one's hand, or actually controlling the meeting. Generally, the quieter or more thoughtful or less rude members never get their say, which does happen in person as the chair scans around the room, granting permission to speak. Group email, while sounding great in theory, is a fiasco, largely because the best typists and/or best writers dominate-- people who cannot touch type, or who can persuasively talk a blue streak, but aren't that formally literate in spelling, grammar and punctuation come off poorly. And don't get me started on the misunderstandings which happen in typed conversations. I'm a writer by trade, and a fairly precise one. I think a lot before I type. I'm forever being misunderstood as cold, or calculating, or insulting, or overly critical when the truth is 180 degrees away. Email is ok when something comes up on short notice, and a vote needs to be taken NOW on an issue which cannot wait. But in general, the oldest, most experienced people are the least computer literate--there are many men in their 40s and beyond who cannot type, because typing was a sissy class in school. That doesn't mean they aren't good leaders or important to the group--only that they can't type. If you are at a meeting, it is often easier to achieve compromise than sitting at your phone or computer, saying Heck NO! Peer pressure and all that. I do think attendance at board meetings is useful. While there are legitimate excuses for not being there (remember excused or unexcused absences from school or work?) if someone cannot attend any meeting in a year, they probably shouldn't be running for the BOG, since the BOG is at least nominally a representative body. Since one of the series of meetings is at Convention, that meeting at least shouldn't be a problem to attend. There can always be exceptions for reasons of changed circumstance (allowing one to serve out a term), or if people know going in that the person will not be at meetings but can do the job otherwise (some recent officers have demonstrated this with excused meeting absences due to health issues). But those are understandable exceptions. Otherwise, people should be there to do the job they signed up for. (On the other hand, if the Society wanted to grant a travel allowance for board meetings, to the tune of a coach airfare ticket and a stay in a Motel 6 for meetings more than 400 miles (8 hours drive) from the director's home, I wouldn't object.)
|
|
L Roebuck
Technical Support
Caving
^V^ Just a caver
Posts: 2,023
|
Post by L Roebuck on Feb 15, 2007 12:55:28 GMT -5
Heck, if I didn't have to attend meetings, I would run for the BOG! Hey I could have been a contender too!
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hood on Feb 15, 2007 16:12:15 GMT -5
(On the other hand, if the Society wanted to grant a travel allowance for board meetings, to the tune of a coach airfare ticket and a stay in a Motel 6 for meetings more than 400 miles (8 hours drive) from the director's home, I wouldn't object.) It would be nice if the NSS had the budget to cover the cost of all board members for the meetings, but the NSS just doesn't have it. I wish they had as I think my credit card still hasn't fully recovered from my four years on the board!
|
|
|
Post by Azurerana on Feb 15, 2007 21:42:53 GMT -5
We could get off on a tangent here, but if the NSS could (and I understand that they cannot) partially defray travel expenses for BOG members, it wouldn't be such burden to come up with candidates. Notice I didn't say a 100% free ride--but that's the major reason I've never allowed my name to be put on a ballot-- I can't afford the travel. I do manage to get to 2 of 3 conventions...but going to Bellingham about broke us last year. We're still paying for that one, too.
Regardless, THANKS! for all you've done for the NSS, Mike!
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 16, 2007 15:03:14 GMT -5
Heck, it would even help if they reduced the number of meetings they had to once a year. But then, I guess they would have to somehow have a process in place that would allow them to actually vote on things outside of the meetings, else that would be one %#$^$#%^^#$ of a meeting!. Though, you would think that in this day and age of computers and telecomuting, it would not be difficult to come up with a way to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Sharon Faulkner on Feb 18, 2007 14:14:04 GMT -5
There is a motion in regards to the issue that has been discussed in this thread listed on the Preliminary Agenda for the March 2007 Board of Governors Meeting in Arizona: www.caves.org/nss-business/reports/mar07/agenda.htmlTo me the motion seems to be something of a general housekeeping clean up of policy.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 19, 2007 8:53:39 GMT -5
Thanks for posting the agenda, Sharon. It looks like it is written that anyone who does not attend a meeting during one fiscal year is going to be kicked out by the board. The motion is to take this OUT of the rules, and to allow people to miss a fiscal year's worth of meetings. The discussion below the motion also states that if someone gets kicked out, the board will pick a temporary new board member to step in. I wonder how this would work - putting in a non-elected person to take the place of someone that is representing a group of voters? How would they decide who this person is? Would they appoint the next in line from the election (kind of like how the runner-ups in the beauty contests would take over if the winner could not complete their duty)? Or would they choose someone that wasn't even running? I totally agree wtih the wish to remove this statement from the rules, and hope it passes!!
|
|
|
Post by madratdan on Feb 19, 2007 9:55:55 GMT -5
Do I dare make the offer??...............I'll attend the meetings if Kelly or Azurerana run for BOG and get elected. I'll drag Mikie along for added flavor. We will add color and flavoring to spice up any meeting...............We can communicate by way of E-mails and text messages during the meeting so you know how to vote and what's going on. I'll set up a web cam for Mikie to play with and record everyones comments with for you later viewing enjoyment. It will be like monkey cam on steroids. We can pass the finished product around to grotto's for use as programs.
Did I really suggest that???
|
|
|
Post by Mike Hood on Feb 19, 2007 15:37:56 GMT -5
The discussion below the motion also states that if someone gets kicked out, the board will pick a temporary new board member to step in. I wonder how this would work - putting in a non-elected person to take the place of someone that is representing a group of voters? How would they decide who this person is? Would they appoint the next in line from the election (kind of like how the runner-ups in the beauty contests would take over if the winner could not complete their duty)? Or would they choose someone that wasn't even running? Actually, this is nothing new. The board has voted to pick a replacement director several times in the past. While I've never seen it happen for someone getting kicked off, I have seen it done to fill a seat vacated by a director who has resigned, or been elected as an officer. In that event, directors will nominate several people (many who did not even run) and then will go through a secret ballot process until one nominee has the majority vote. The selectee normally finishes out the term.
|
|
Kelly
Beginner
Posts: 129
|
Post by Kelly on Feb 20, 2007 8:08:13 GMT -5
Dan you crack me up! ;D BTW, I believe Lynn said she would run too... I would LOVE to see Lynn run for the board! Or, how about YOU Dan? You did say you would go to the meetings! Thanks for the info Mike! Its nice to have someone around here that knows stuff like that to help keep us strait. -Kelly
|
|