Category talk:ASG
This is my proposed model for Free Geek's new governing body; hopefully this will help move the discussion forward! -Steve Forbush, March 4, 2011
Free Geek is somewhat unique in that it has essentially divided board functions between two separate bodies. It would seem that the idea behind this design was to ensure that Free Geek was governed in an open, participatory fashion. Unfortunately, there seem to be some problems that have arisen from the current structure. In part due to the board-council model, Free Geek seems to be unable to delegate authority in a timely or efficient manner. As well, it is unclear as to what tasks are to be completed by the board/council/staff. The current system also seems to have trouble increasing/maintaining the levels of participation needed to ensure open and transparent governance.
So, my suggestion was to basically take the positive aspects of the board and council, merge them together, and call it "bouncil" (props to Laurel 1.0 for the name)
Here is roughly how it would work (numbers given are not set in stone, and are just used to illustrate the point):
Basically, we would rewrite some of Free Geeks bylaws concerning how the board functions. We would be creating something akin to a "people's board". Terms would be shortened, 1 year (or whatever was deemed appropriate). The term limits would be lengthened to whatever we feel is right, and the number of board members would remain flexible. We would have an established minimum to meet any legal requirements, but would otherwise allow for as many individuals to join as were interested. The new board would at first be comprised of existing board and council members. Basically, any current council members who wished to continue in the governing process would join the board. The mechanism for election is flexible; the board could be self-electing, or could be elected by another group or process that was perceived to be more fair and democratic. However, before someone is elected to the bouncil, they would be asked to attend 3 bouncil meetings before requesting to join, just as we now ask newcomers to wait 3 council meeting before weighing in a major issues.
Here are the reasons why I feel the bouncil might be a useful model for Free Geek:
To begin, having individuals commit to becoming board members will increase accountability, even if it for a shortened term of 1 year. In the current model, it is possible (and probable) that individuals on council will come and go, with little or no warning. This has the potential to negatively affect Free Geek, since it makes it hard to achieve consistent, continuous governance. The governance of an organization is extremely important, and I feel that individuals who wish to participate in that process should be willing to make a formal commitment to do so.
By having council merge with the board, Free Geek will also be able to overcome many of the other problems it has had with governance. If there is a unified governing body, the division of labor will become more clear, and authority will be easier to delegate. Visioning, planning, and oversight will improve, since the decision-making body will have increased access to financial and operational data that is not normally provided to the council.
However, while creating a bouncil will increase accountability, it must be structured in such a way so that it does not create too many barriers to participation. This is why have suggested having an "open" board, with short-terms that are easy to commit to, and lengthy term-limits to allow individuals to participate as long as they would like.
Finally, creating a governing body of this nature will make it easier for Free Geek to interact with it's external operating environment. The current governing structure makes it hard for Free Geek to interface with other organizations, the IRS, donors, etc. By having the board merge with council, there will be a single entity that can be the go-to point for individuals who are interested in our organization.
Hopefully I explained this clearly. Many of the specifics of this model can be tweaked depending on what the consensus decision ends up being. Ultimately, I just wanted to create a board that was very easy for people to become involved with, yet still maintain a level of dedication and professionalism that will help the organization grow and move forward!
Let me know if you have any questions or comments, and I will be happy to elaborate.
-Steve
This summary was created on 2/16/2011, and simply contains my perspective of what we discussed. Steve Forbush
A Brief Summary of the ASG Meeting on 2/9/2011
Basic Issues and themes that came up:
• What was/ is the purpose of council? Was it to provide a forum for people to speak, or a place where the big decisions were made? Going forward, has council outlived its purpose and need a new one, or do want things to stay the way they have been? • Are there problems with the current board-council structure? Does having two (perhaps three if we count staff) governing bodies create gaps in communication? Does the current structure create problems with accountability? Does the current model punish leaders and decisive action? • How do we want Free Geek to represent its constituents? Should we seek to increase the size of council/attract more volunteers? Or, should council membership be more restricted/official? If it’s not possible to represent everybody, how do we deal with this? How do we promote transparency and openness without sacrificing the competency of our leadership? • What are practical issues facing council? How do we deal with low/inconsistent attendance and participation? How do we increase the speed and efficiency with which council can make decisions? How do we reconcile the legal obligations of a board with our desire to have an open participatory process for volunteers?