|RE: governance structure||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Rob Sandelin (robsanmicrosoft.com)|
|Date: Fri, 24 Jun 94 14:46 CDT|
Monika Stumpf, Monterey CoHousing asked: >Question now is: what does your >structure look like when you have a nominal board. What's underneath? I >suspect a list of committees/task forces, but do you still have something >like a committee of the whole which makes final decisions based on the >input of the people who have checked the issue out? At Sharingwood our governance works like this. The board handles issues about policy and legality. They are also the coordinators of the committees and try to be sure that if two committees are working on related things that communication between committees happens. The board also takes a big picture view and may suggest action items to the committees or form task forces. The task forces and committees have autonomy to make decisions and take actions, as long as the decisions and actions fall under a certain pre-defined category. For example decisions or actions which affect the whole community, individuals property or, would be best confirmed by everyone are punted to the monthly meeting. It is up to the conscience of the committee to determine whether a decision goes to the large group or not. If a decision or action needs big group consensus, it is required that a written description of the issue be published in the monthly newsletter. It is then brought before the whole group at the next general meeting and we work through our consensus process. If the issue needs substantial work for consensus it is passed back to the committee with input. One of our problems continues to be that the agenda for committee meetings is typically not very well communicated so if a committee is dealing with something I care about and I don't hear about it, I'm potentially out of the decision loop. From past history people have learned to consult certain individuals about actions and because I am one of those I personally am in touch with most of what is going on. Others are not and at times that has been a problem. Our operating assumption is that individual members are responsible for asking about what is happening, not waiting and being told. Although I agree with this, because that is my style, it does not work well for others. Minutes do get posted in the commonhouse but reading through such is pretty tedious and the quality of minutes is largely dependant on the note taker and some people do less thorough job of recording than others. We do have committee reports at the general meeting but often that is well after the fact of a decision or action. Rob Sandelin Sharingwood
governance structure School of Mathematics, U of MN, June 24 1994
- RE: governance structure Rob Sandelin, June 24 1994
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.