Hi Board,
Only two Board members voted "Yes" to this policy. Per the Community Review Process step 8, I am now required to pass it back to the Policy Review Team to see if they can fix the issues that led to this vote not being approved. However, there is not a lot of rationale as to why it did not pass for them to action. I would like your input on why it didn't pass, and if it's fixable or if it's a re-write.
VOTE
Grant Ongers - NO
Vandana Verma - YES
Gary Robinson - YES
Motion did not pass.
(2 YAY, 1 NAY, 5 did not vote)
Grant wrote a comment that he feels that the policy needs to be re-written by projects and committee chapters. I would like to hear from the rest of the Board, particularly the five Directors who did not vote, as to what needs to change.
My initial thoughts on fixing this policy:
- Policy must have a point that helps Leaders executing our mission, and is as frictionless as possible (the easy path is the correct path)
- Policy must help the Foundation manage or automate policy
- Policy exceptions are time-limited, must be documented. and reviewed regularly. If the policy operates through nearly all exceptions, the policy is wrong
- Policy has
self-correcting or enforceable controls and oversight
To that end, I would propose the Policy Review Team offer the Board, any interested committees or members, as well as the Foundation itself, a 2-3 hour window to meet and group edit the policy until it meets expectations:
- Remove all unenforceable or unnecessary policies.
- Review all necessary but high friction and contentious policy items from the feedback and from your feedback to determine if we want to change the policy setting or even keep that policy item
- Some policy should be moved to handbooks as leading practices where there can be no objective enforcement or the policy is not easy to manage
- Push through another 30-day policy review once this edit is complete.
Thoughts?
Draft policy as it stands:
Feedback:
thanks,
Andrew