Bylaws proposal: Allow multiple officers to hold Operations, aligning language with other officer roles

[Brett Neese]

Hey all!

There has recently been some talk about the possibility of splitting Operations into Operations and IT. Most people seemed receptive but there were some concerns - an IT position that "reports" to Operations was identified as problematic, and others pointed out that we've not always had interested candidates for a specific IT position.

One solution to this problem is to update the bylaws as follows to align the position with other roles that allow multiple people to fill them. I am proposing we simply append the clause: This office may be occupied by multiple officers, the total of which may not exceed two. Each officer will receive a full vote on the Board of Directors to Article 2, Section 1, subsection D of the bylaws. (See appendix 1 for the proposed new language in context.)

IMO, this approach has benefits over specifically adding an IT role because a) it doesn't require the position to be filled, thus eliminating concerns over whether we would always have the candidates and b) it doesn't paint us into a corner my over specifying the roles and responsibilities --  the distinction between the possible two operations leads is something that can happen outside the bylaws and thus remain something living and evolving vs legal and static. And, it increases the bus factor of the Operations role, which is badly needed -- if for whatever reason one Operations person is unable to perform their duties, the other can take over their role temporarily. 

It has some downsides too, though: most concerning IMO is that it means that we can't specify at election time who is in charge of what portion of operations. I think this is mostly something we can resolve through practice and custom, not legalese. It also creates a situation where it's possible that there is a tie on the board, but that's already a potential issue by allowing more than 1 person to fill Treasurer and Champion. And, it increases the size of the board which increases coordination costs -- but based on my time on the board, I think this is worth it to have more voices involved (we have so much work to do!) 

I think the positives are better than the negatives, but I'm open to hearing (constructive) thoughts.

This proposal has no immediate impact on the fiscal position of HSL and will become eligible for a community vote at the HYH on Thursday, April 9. 

Brett

--

Appendix 1: Proposed Addition to Bylaws in Context

Existing language is italicized for emphasis, new language is italics and red.

• Champion: The office of Champion shall be responsible for coordinating tasks between each office of the Board of Directors, assisting HSL membership in membership-related tasks, and enforcing the bylaws. This office may be occupied by multiple officers, the total of which may not exceed two. Each officer will receive a full vote on the Board of Directors.
• Treasurer: The office of Treasurer shall be responsible for managing financial assets and liabilities and collecting membership dues, donations, and other revenue. This office may be occupied by multiple officers, the total of which may not exceed two. Each officer will receive a full vote on the Board of Directors.
• Secretary: The office of Secretary shall be responsible for recording the proceedings of HeatSync Lab functions, such as events, fundraiser, and other official activities. Additionally, the office of the Secretary shall be responsible for the oversight of all records and papers produced in HSL's operations.
• Operations: The Office of Operations shall be responsible for the oversight of HSL operations and delegation of operational tasks to HSL volunteers. This office may be occupied by multiple officers, the total of which may not exceed two. Each officer will receive a full vote on the Board of Directors.

[David Lang]

> It also creates a situation where it's
> possible that there is a tie on the board, but that's already a potential
> issue by allowing more than 1 person to fill Treasurer and Champion.

the board can currently be between 4 and 6 members
1-2 Champions
1 Secretary
1-2 Finance
1 Operations

this change would mean there could be between 4 and 7 members and IMHO does not
change the odds of there being an even number of members (and therefor a tie)

I very much agree that the Operations work needs multiple people, and I think
it's better for the second person taking responsibility to have a vote than not.

the only question in my mind is if it should be just a second operations person
overall or if there should be a formal split in responsibility?

David Lang

[Eric Ose]

I don't think this is a really useful change. We've had the rule allowing multiple board members to be treasurer and it hasn't been utilized in over a decade as far as I know.

Just changing the language to be allowed isn't enough to make this a thing that happens.

I do think a significant change to what is covered in the role is important and this doesn't address that.

Eric Ose
Robot Ambassador

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/nsr07r5n-q78s-5221-117s-5054o9025336%40ynat.uz.

[Brett Neese]

I feel that. I see it as necessary but not sufficient. I just don’t think the language to what is covered in the role and what is not is not something that should live in the bylaws. So I see this slim proposal as setting the stage without convoluting our already over-convoluted bylaws. 

But I can be convinced about going a different route.

Brett

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/CAEk_gvBmyBB5WAS2jTTt-oDZrxo9fMdAkVjxRXDmBJgxyG-Q2A%40mail.gmail.com.

[David Lang]

Eric Ose wrote:

> I don't think this is a really useful change. We've had the rule allowing
> multiple board members to be treasurer and it hasn't been utilized in over
> a decade as far as I know.

I think it needs to be, as we approach our next election it would be good to get
more people running for all the board seats. backups are needed.

But if it's not filled, does it do any harm to have a 2nd operations seat
authorized? Would it be a good thing to have a 2nd operations seat if it were
filled?

David Lang

[Jay McGavren]

Quoting prior replies from multiple people:

> the only question in my mind is if it should be just a second operations person
> overall or if there should be a formal split in responsibility?

I don't see the benefit to a formal split. I think it would just unnecessarily constrain the Operations people in what they each can do. They can work it out as the need arises. (As Brett described above.)

> I don't think this is a really useful change. We've had the rule allowing
> multiple board members to be treasurer and it hasn't been utilized in over a
> decade as far as I know.

It also isn't harmful. And we know from experience that, (presumably) unlike Treasurer, Operations is too broad a role.

Sounds like we have precedent for splitting a role. Why not apply the same to Operations as well and see if it helps?

-Jay

[Brett Neese]

It's a bit off-topic, but I would be remiss not to point out that it's actually somewhat of a problem that we don't have multiple formal treasurers at the moment as Shaundra is quite ill. Her institutional knowledge is fantastic, but we really could use an extra hand there as many of the questions and concerns we get are about the financial state of the org - questions and concerns we share as board members ourselves.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HeatSync Labs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to heatsynclabs...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/heatsynclabs/4d30cc3a-423b-4f24-89dc-430fc3073f31n%40googlegroups.com.