[HCoop-Discuss] Bylaws revision - increasing size of board, etc.

[Nathan Kennedy]

> I'm not against this more involved model where it works, I'm just not
> convinced this is good to enshrine too heavily in our type of
> organization.  As you point out trying to make a fine line between
> operational decisions that do not require "member approval" and those
> policy decisions that do, invites "squeaky" members to challenge every
> single action that the board takes on the basis that it should be put to
> member vote.
>
> Also, as has been obvious, the great majority of members do not WANT to be
> deeply involved with decision-making.  That's why we have a board that is
> supposed to be popularly elected to do this extra work.  It is not clear
> that results that are better and more in accordance with the membership's
> wishes will result, if more decisions are ratified by some small, noisier
> segment of the membership that has the time and interest to weigh in on
> them.

Here I am already replying to myself, but just to make this point clear,
consider that if a member wants to be deeply involved in policy decisions,
then he or she should run for the board.  If that member does not win a
board election, then by definition that member is someone whom most
members think they would rather not be making policies than those who DO
win the board election.  Therefore it is likely that any small group of
members voting against mundane policy decisions of the board are often
actually voting AGAINST the will of the broader membership that voted to
delegate these decisions to the board.

Also, I did not mention but I *do* think it would be a good idea to
include precatory language in the bylaws indicating that the board's
decisions should be made in consultation with the membership.  That's what
we have the mailing lists and other communication channels for.  It
already says that board meetings are to be open to the public and minutes
published.

-ntk