Printable View
This is a discussion of increasing the size of the board to nine at the request of Michael Barron. He proposes to add the women's coordinator to the board.
I would certainly be open to this idea if we are talking about the right candidate, someone who is willing to work constructively to advance chess in Canada.
A larger board means somewhat slower decisions. We will probably have to time limit votes by email when necessary. Any board members who do not respond would be considered abstentions.
I personally would prefer to see the board back at 7, but I strongly believe it should be an odd number so I would support this over the status quo.
I find the points that are being made to all have some merit. I also cringe at the idea of too big an Executive, and an even number, but I think I prefer (not 100% sure) that the Women's Coordinator be included. I would also like to offer for your consideration that it works better to have more specific roles on the Executive. In other words (this is in NO WAY a slight on the current Directors-at-Large), I propose that we tighten the Executive into mostly core function roles, for example:
7 = President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, FIDE Representative, Youth Coordinator, Women's Coordinator.
I believe that this should be planned a year out, so that the Directors at Large can be repositioned as applicable.
For some functions having an assigned role is important but there is a lot of work and opportunities that fall outside of the assigned functions. We have no one that would have the assignment of Chess for Life (working on troubled youth) or Chess for Freedom (working with prisons). Patricia Gamliel has stepped forward to work on this because she has the ability, expertise and contacts to move these things forward.
If we add the women's coordinator, I would hope that she or he would be a fully engaged member of the board relied upon to be the first resource for issues dealing with women's chess but also other issues. Opportunities are falling by the wayside because the people that are on the board have only so much free time. The dictates of Pareto's principle that 80% of the results come from 20% of the effort should be kept in mind at all times. The problem is that it is not always obvious which efforts will bear fruit.
Why voting (a sticky poll) is not yet opened on this matter? This motion was properly brought by Michael Barron long time ago, and it is included in the AGM's agenda. Please, obey the procedure and open another sticky poll. Agenda of the AGM shouldn't be modified based on the President's opinion "are we talking about right candidate" or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec
For having served and for still serving on a number of boards and committees (some I chair), I can confirm that the numbers and positions are irrelevant as long as the job is done. If we continue to use ZOOM, which licence the CFC recently acquired, meetings should be easy. There is plenty that can be done for Chess but it requires volunteers.
That, also brings me to comment on some of the posts I have seen in the past few days. If you have an interest in advancing chess, please step forward: I can assure you that the board will welcome your participation.
On the contrary, I find the number to be very relevant. A board with only three directors is subject to hostile takeover bu a group of two friends who can disregard the work of the third director or even decide everything between themselves before the board meeting begins. Too many directors runs the risk of the failure to elect the minimum number of directors which is catastrophic for the organization.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricia Gamliel
More realistically, the mains problem of a too large board of directors is "deadwood". This can be eliminated with good Article of Incorporation and bylaws. Each Governor at Large should be assigned in writing responsibility such as chairman of a committee, get Federal funding, responsible of Chess in Prison... This would make possible to evaluate the Governor at Large and eventually remove him if none of his task has been done.
Furthermore, any project that has a supporter on the board of directors will usually advance much faster then a project without any support at the top.
Many information are labelled "Confidential" and cannot be shared with volunteers who are not on the board. A volunteer may not be able to help because the board cannot tell him all the truth.
Last, a board member will feel more implication then a mere volunteer.
odd is better then even
What you are saying is not contradicting what I wrote. You are giving examples and they are valid. It remains that any number of board members would only make a difference if people are not doing their job. This board had 8 members and at no time was there a 4/4 vote. At no time was there an issue about who does what. Sitting in meetings (ZOOM), by phone and email, I have discovered some incredibly dedicated people who were on the phone past 10:00 pm discussing steps to advance chess. Especially Vlad and Cristina with whom I spoke the most. My experiences differ from the ones some people have. I chair a board for a non-profit org. giving services to vulnerable people: For a while we were 4. We worked hard and always by consensus. We are now 5 but nothing has changed. I chair a committee in which, we are 3. We render quasi-judicial decisions. There is no way any of us would not give all she/he has to ensure a sound decision is written. I don’t write, here, in theory. I write based on my wide experience sitting on boards and committees for a large part of my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée