Non-board organizer roles

[Christopher Biemer]

Here's a proposal for the structure of non-board organizer roles that I brain-stormed yesterday. Please share any suggestions or constructive criticism you can think of. I think it strikes the right balance between being maximally inclusive of all who want to have a say in SA-NYC's operation, and streamlining work flow.

THE PROPOSAL:

1) Committees are called to form by the board. Obviously, anyone can suggest a new committee and advocate for why it will be useful.

2) Committee 'chairperson' or 'coordinator' roles (whatever language everyone is comfortable with) are reserved strictly for non-board members. This chairperson has an equal 1-share vote just like every other committee member.

3) Each committee includes one board member who is half liaison-advisor, half vice-chair. Helping to establish the committee's agenda is not a part of this role, beyond making sure the committee is serving the general function it was established to serve. The vice-chair component of the role is just to act as a stand-in if the chairperson is not able to meet for any reason, without altering the content or direction of the agenda. The liaison-advisor component is to ensure that the board stays up to date on what's going on, and to prevent miscommunication. For instance, the board liaison can point out if a decision the committee is considering is already incompatible with some other pre-existing SA-wide policy or is not legally feasible. This could prevent instances in which committee members might feel like their decision was unfairly dismissed after the fact when they've already invest considerable time and energy on it. The vice-chair can also serve as the acting chairperson if the chairperson leaves, or if it takes a while to find a willing chairperson when committees are new and not yet stable.

4) The vice-chair/ board liaison has an equal 1-share vote just like every other committee member.

OTHER MODELS:

So far, the only other proposal for non-board organizer roles has been the traditional, sort of default structure used by all kinds of non-profit organizations. That would look like this:

1) Each board member also serves as the 'chairperson' or 'coordinator' of one or two committees, based on roughly equal distribution of additional workload and best match of experience and interest.

2) Non-board members serve in their organizer roles by joining however many committees interest them, and every committee member has an an equal vote (no extra weight is given to the board member's vote).

ADVANTAGES OVER THE TRADITIONAL MODEL

I think the advantages of this proposal over the traditional model are:

1) Maximizing non-board organizer input to make use of everyone's personal talents and time

2) More equal distribution of workload

3) Having an automatic backup chairperson

4) Clearer, more efficient communication between the board and non-board organizers

5) Non-board organizers should feel like they truly 'own' SA

DISADVANTAGES

Additionally, I think that it's not disadvantageous in any way because:

1) Under the traditional model, board members would've had to attend every one of their committee's meetings anyway, so it's not like they'll be investing extra time.

2) Although the vice-chair role can't overrule the committee's decisions or change its direction as long it continues to serve the committee's intended function, the board itself can always vote to take action if a committee obviously completely disregards standing SA-NYC-wide policy it's already aware of.

Interested in everyone's thoughts!

Best Regards,

-Chris Biemer
(609) 408-3935

[Scott E. Weiner, Ph.D.]

WOW Chris you really put a lot of thought into it. Thanks for your hard work. One quick question (have to admit I only skimmed through it am buried in some work) is #2--while it is preferred that it be non board member do we really want to absolutely rule it out that a board member who has the talent/background or interest in specific committee can't be head of committee. They might be the best person for the job.

 

 

Scott E. Weiner, Ph.D.

Cognitive Engineer

Minds | Emotions | Actions | Life ReDesign

ScottEWeiner.com

scott_e...@yahoo.com

212.360.7222

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sunday Assembly New York" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sunday-assembly-ne...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Christopher Biemer]

That's a great point Scott and I will have to take some more time to think about any potential cons that imposes. Off the top of my head, I imagine it that way because I saw it as a guarantee that there will be no risk of the appearance that board members are strong-arming anything even if they are not doing so. I figured that by making sure at least one board members is on each committee as a regular member, the group should still benefit from all of their relevant expertise, talents, networks, etc.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sunday-assembly-new-york+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Christopher Biemer]

Also, there's no reason why more than one board member can't join a committee as a regular member if they are interested in helping out that way.