Twelve-hour meetings suck you dry
Jan. 6th, 2014 05:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luzulaGah, so tired. Am just home from three days of being at the annual meeting of the organization where I am auditor.
I am happy with my contribution, anyway. I kept my mouth shut during discussion sessions and debates, and did not vote. And then I prepared myself really thoroughly before my presentation, and I'm happy with how it went. Several people said I did well afterwards.
The president of the board apparently thought I was conspiring with people in corridors and inciting to rebellion, though? Which is bullshit. His issue is partly that I'm auditor and partly that I'm too old for the org and so shouldn't participate in debates and so on (it's a youth organization). Which is true, and I didn't, but it's ridiculous to say that I shouldn't be able to talk to the members, and I certainly did not walk around trying to persuade people to my personal political opinions. Of course, I did talk freely in private with friends who share my opinions, but who doesn't?
Whatever. I did not talk with him, pretty sure it would not have been productive (he apparently also took it personally when members put forward motions that went counter to the board's. *eyeroll*) The meeting largely voted with the board, though sometimes with a narrow margin. There's obviously two different camps in the org, and also a lot of people who are uncertain. The ideological differences became pretty clear during debates: traditionally, the role of the board has been to do the necessary administration so that the members can be free to do what they want and have the resources to do so (this is an org with a lot of member activity). This is the camp I agree with. Last year's board wanted to be leaders and drive the org in a particular direction, and they want the president to be more powerful and to be paid by the org to work, and also they want to employ more people in central administration (and they are driving these changes without asking the annual meeting first, which is what I was criticizing as auditor). Obviously this means more money to pay people and less money for member activity, and a more hierarchical organization. I think it sucks.
I am re-elected as auditor, so let's see what happens this year. I won't have any room to be critical of the increased employment costs, because the vote went with the board on that. But the board this year is a lot more diverse, including some people who were really critical of the last board, so that's good. And there's stuff I can point out so they can do it better this year; for example, the way the budget decision-making process was planned out at this year's annual meeting really sucked - the members did not even have all the information when they voted the budget through. Arrrgh! Democracy, people, why so hard?
Okay. Sorry for rambling on about this, I am just sooooo tired and this has filled my mind all weekend. I couldn't sleep last night for thinking about it. And I am so happy that the org where I am on the board does not have these kinds of conflicts.
I am happy with my contribution, anyway. I kept my mouth shut during discussion sessions and debates, and did not vote. And then I prepared myself really thoroughly before my presentation, and I'm happy with how it went. Several people said I did well afterwards.
The president of the board apparently thought I was conspiring with people in corridors and inciting to rebellion, though? Which is bullshit. His issue is partly that I'm auditor and partly that I'm too old for the org and so shouldn't participate in debates and so on (it's a youth organization). Which is true, and I didn't, but it's ridiculous to say that I shouldn't be able to talk to the members, and I certainly did not walk around trying to persuade people to my personal political opinions. Of course, I did talk freely in private with friends who share my opinions, but who doesn't?
Whatever. I did not talk with him, pretty sure it would not have been productive (he apparently also took it personally when members put forward motions that went counter to the board's. *eyeroll*) The meeting largely voted with the board, though sometimes with a narrow margin. There's obviously two different camps in the org, and also a lot of people who are uncertain. The ideological differences became pretty clear during debates: traditionally, the role of the board has been to do the necessary administration so that the members can be free to do what they want and have the resources to do so (this is an org with a lot of member activity). This is the camp I agree with. Last year's board wanted to be leaders and drive the org in a particular direction, and they want the president to be more powerful and to be paid by the org to work, and also they want to employ more people in central administration (and they are driving these changes without asking the annual meeting first, which is what I was criticizing as auditor). Obviously this means more money to pay people and less money for member activity, and a more hierarchical organization. I think it sucks.
I am re-elected as auditor, so let's see what happens this year. I won't have any room to be critical of the increased employment costs, because the vote went with the board on that. But the board this year is a lot more diverse, including some people who were really critical of the last board, so that's good. And there's stuff I can point out so they can do it better this year; for example, the way the budget decision-making process was planned out at this year's annual meeting really sucked - the members did not even have all the information when they voted the budget through. Arrrgh! Democracy, people, why so hard?
Okay. Sorry for rambling on about this, I am just sooooo tired and this has filled my mind all weekend. I couldn't sleep last night for thinking about it. And I am so happy that the org where I am on the board does not have these kinds of conflicts.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-06 06:16 pm (UTC)Honestly!
Have you ever been exposed to the Carver Model for board governance? It's a very hands-off approach: exec staff is basically the only link to the board, and the board makes decisions based on policies (here called "end statements" for reasons unclear). At any rate, it's taken over the non-profits/coops in our town and I'm not happy about it.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-06 06:54 pm (UTC)Anyway, that model looks to be mostly concerned with the relationship between the board and employed staff. I am much more interested in the relationship between the board and the members of the org.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-06 08:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-01-06 08:47 pm (UTC)The organization where I am on the board is a different one--it's also a non-profit environmental organization, but we only work with forest issues.