On Sat, 2007-02-17 at 14:36 +1030, David Lloyd wrote: > I think that you are suggesting that the organisation be led by a > council of advisors but the work be performed by those in committees who > are, themselves, assisted by the advisors in the council. Yes. > You're suggesting to the organisation: > > 1. That a council, board or committee of advisors be elected, who act > as a "Governing Body"; and > 2. That the organisation elect a Leader and Vice-Leader who act on > the advice of the "Governing Body" and preside over that body; and > 3. That specific administrative roles be filled by appointment or > recommendation from the "Governing Body" or wider membership Yes. > You are asking the organisation to allow the "Governing Body" to > delegate more power and responsibility to groups of other people, who > are called "committees", and for the organisation to delegate its power > to assign the responsibility for appointments -- such as treasurer and > secretary -- to the "Governing Body". Very accurate and concise summary, David. Spot on. > Your reasoning is sound but do you think this feeling of "lack of > empowerment" or "not feeling like first class citizens of the > organisation" is because of the organisation's structure or because the > committee -- like many if not all committees throughout the world -- > hasn't found that one perfect way to run an organisation and keep > everyone happy? I don't expect to find a way to keep *everyone* happy, although that would be nice! I won't go into it in detail here because I suspect this will be answered by my reply a few minutes ago to Steve Hanley's questions, but the fundamental issue is making clear what the various roles and responsibilities entail. Cheers :-) -- Jonathan Oxer Ph +61 3 9723 9399
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part