90p Admin

Bylaws and the question of whether the president can vote. I wanted to put this to bed, as I sensed some residual skepticism as to whether the presiding officer can vote except to break ties. Comments by Ted The Attorney also threw shade on my confidence. So I consulted Mr. Google. Turns out I was sort of wrong. I've had extensive experience starting in college with running meetings with Roberts, and presiding officers were always only tie-breakers. However, these were always larger groups, with constant potential for significant contention. It turns out that Roberts explicitly makes exceptions for smaller bodies like our Board. ===== Q: Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie? A: No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. So, in meetings of a small board (where there are not more than about a dozen board members present), and in meetings of a committee, the presiding officer may exercise these rights and privileges as fully as any other member. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of any other type of assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the rights to make motions or speak in debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result. When will the chair's vote affect the result? On a vote that is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, the chair can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1 ======= I have mixed feelings about this. My past experience has weighed heavily on preventing ""runaway presidents"" railroading things through a part-time group, to the ultimate detriment of the larger group. That bias might be counterproductive here. If I understand the history correctly, the main decisional problems 90 Minds' Board has had was the opposite: hung votes. Usually, the president is one of the most engaged members of a board, and therefore an active participant in the decision-making process leading up to the vote. IMO, this is one of the real powers of that office, and voting is not really necessary to have appropriate influence. Robert's will let us have a voting or tie-breaker-only President. We just specify in the Bylaws. I remain convinced that a key consideration for our Board is a size that encourages a breadth of views and interests, and yet small enough to essentially require active participation by all members. I think the drain on Moira's time with Board interactions should be addressed by channeling nearly all interaction through the President. With that in mind, the Board size should be 6 if we don't allow President to vote, and 7 if we do. My thoughts on this...

added to the agenda for Thursday.

1.There was period when all aspects were very active with MOTM ramping up, Affiliate Recruitment and Renewals and regular committee business. It's seasonal. I think @JerryNorman you talked with me a couple of times when I was in the middle of this time. Once that period is over, it's much less intense. It's been less than a year, and there is a lot of ground for me to cover both in what's been done, what must be done, and what might be new to be done. Don't choose bylaws or board size based only on this first year. 2.Running everything through the President defeats the basis' of our board, group, and its founding. We are a participatory group. See above. 3.Historically this group grew **significantly** with only 5 active board members, one of those being a dual office President/Executive Director. By separating the President and Executive Director position, you end up with a 5-member board and an Executive Director, 6. 5 is an ideal board size. If you go to six, seven or more, what's the purpose, just to have one more view point? Why? 5 can find common ground faster, feel more comfortable brining up new ideas, and in a smaller group it is easier for everyone to have a voice, rather than 1 or 2 never getting a chance to speak in a larger board. Worried about cliques? Stop worrying, cliques are less likely in a smaller group, it's harder to hide. A bigger board will likely result in fragmentation of viewpoints, just as too many hands on the rudder may cause the ship to run in circles, or worse, run a ground. If five isn't enough 12 months from now, then change it then. 4.Regarding, voting. Following the rules for the smaller group, makes sense and if you plan on citing this work as a precedence for the bylaws, then follow it. http: //www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1. 5.I have many ideas and much feedback to share at the annual meeting and look forward to sharing with the entire board February 28, 2018.

Excellent (and appreciated) counterpoints! I hope everybody thinks this through for the Thurs meeting.

I took a deep dive through this draft. Very good! I summarized each section to help all understand what's in it. I hope it helps. I think the only specific items to consider are board size and president voting rules.