HELLO GUILD,
MORE DISCUSSION ON THE 9 MEMBER BOARD EXPANSION. AS THE YAHOO LIST DOES NOT
SEEM TO ALLOW COLOR TEXT, I AM USING "MICHAEL" AND "MEMBER" TO DESIGNATE THE
ORIGIN OF THE COMMENTS BELOW. FOR BACKGROUND ON THIS ISSUE REFER TO THE
EMAIL I SENT OUT YESTERDAY AND THE JULY AND AUGUST NEWSLETTERS.
MICHAEL
SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO ME AND I WILL SHARE THEM WITH THE MEMBERSHIP
ANONYMOUSLY OR TO THE GUILD EMAIL LIST AND COME TO
THE MEETING AUGUST 25 TO DISCUSS THIS IMPORTANT PROPOSED CHANGE IN PERSON.

MEMBER: more than two years of service would be too long. Replacing three
members each year for two years of service seems very doable.

MICHAEL: More than one person has brought up the "3 years is too long"
comment. I can't figure out how 9 persons can be changed every two years
and get a good balance of those remaining on the board with newcomers. It
works for the first six people but then the last three either have to join
one or the other group of 3, giving us a 3 stay on/6 go off split or the
opposite. It is possible to do it with an 8 member board where 4 rotate on
and off each year. The downside of a even number is there is no tie
breaker. Valerie suggested that the treasurer could be a board member in a
different category as it is much more difficult to change treasurer
(requiring change of bank/new checks, expenses, etc. the last time we did
it.) If the treasurer was treated differently but still had a vote in case
of a tie, then the 8 member board could work with 2 year terms. Perhaps
some other of you can come up with a better working scenario?

MEMBER: I am on the boards of a few other organizations and I've found that
the more people involved on the board, the harder it is too get things done
and the process becomes immobilized by indecision or lack of a quorum.

MEMBER: To be honest, the town hall meeting structure has never been a
favorite because it doesn't require interaction. Increasing the number of
board members increases interaction because of their term of service, during
which they will bring new ideas and hopefully new energy to the process.

MEMBER: What are the checks and balances in this process?

MICHAEL: Good question. It looks like the checks and balances would have
to be openness of the board business and the membership paying attention. I
don't think there has been much in the way of checks and balances in the
past, perhaps with the theory that with regular town-hall type meetings the
membership was always involved in the decision making. As I mentioned in my
previous comments, the reason I am suggesting this structure change is that
there have not been enough members attending our regular meetings to make
necessary decisions for running the guild; my thought being that if a number
of guild members committed to being on the board to make those decisions and
the guild entrusted the decision making to them, we could have a functioning
guild.

MEMBER: Here are a few other general thoughts that were triggered by the
discussions you relayed.

1. Virtual meetings using skype or other chatting software are used by many
other organizations. HTML transcripts of the monthly board meetings can then
be published within minutes of the meeting and can be read by the members.
This also gives a searchable reference for items that were discussed and
perhaps tabled for a future meeting.

2. Virtual meetings also hold the board members accountable because the
actual transcripts will be published. It keeps members from derogatory
discussions when they know that their actual conversations are being
published.

3. The newsletter is great as a legacy item but I agree with the member that
suggested that some sort of indexable blog that allows an open dialog needs
to be developed.

MICHAEL: I don't know much about the format of blogs, but I believe our
guild website uses blog software. Also, the emails sent to the email list
usually end up on the guild website. Photos can not be sent through the
Yahoo list (I don't think) and thus do not end up on the website, although
it is possible to post them there separately. Currently the ability to post
comments or photos is limited to certain members...I only know of two for
certain, our webmaster Matt Baum and our newsletter editor (me). I think
the guild could decide to change that if you wish, or develop a different
part of the website as a pure member content blog. The guild can also
decide to eliminate the newsletter (would save the guild some money) but I
repeat myself in pointing out that this is an online discussion and we have
guild members who do not use the internet who get a printed newsletter and
who, by nature of not using the internet, are not able to voice their
opinions on this matter in this online discussion.