Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Board of directors setting boundaries

[Sue Stigleman (tangosue]

Thank you for your email!  This is an important issue for us.  Your
suggestions are
helpful.  I love the point person idea.

--sue


> [Original Message]
> From: Cheryl Charis-Graves <ccharis [at] earthlink.net>
> To: coho <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> Date: 7/25/2003 6:58:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_Board of directors setting boundaries
>
>
>  > ---Individual members ot the board are called at home and expected to
> > immediately step in and handle situations that arise over the course of
> > the day. 
> > 
> > ---Issues that fall within the pervue of our teams are being sent
directly
> > to the board, rather than first to the relevant team, with a carbon copy
> > to the board so that the board is aware of the issue but not immediately
> > responsible for responding to it.  What's the point of having teams at
all
> > if everything goes straight to the board for action?
>
> I, too, am on our board of directors -- we call ourselves the
"coordinating
> council."
>
> I get a lot of questions directed my way, but I do think our comm'ty
> respects time/space as far as not expecting board members to be "on call"
> all the time. They have expressed more concern about board members burning
> out with too many demands on them, so I think they do try to lessen the
> burden when they can.
>
> We ? after MUCH discussion ? changed from the team structure to a "point
> person" system. Each person has responsibility for a "cluster" of tasks,
> e.g. Turf maintenance. Point persons don't necessarily have to do the work
> itself, but they coordinate the tasks required and are responsible for
> making sure the task gets done, possibly by a work crew on comm'ty work
> days. Each coordinating council rep is responsible for coordinating the
> tasks of 4-5 point people, e.g., buildings, grounds, finances.
>
> We don't have team meetings anymore, as individuals are responsible for
> their specific areas. The list of "tasks" came from the teams, and was
split
> into "critical" and "non-critical."
>
> We're a year + into it. In some ways, it works well for some people.
Having
> fewer meetings is WAY better for a lot of people. You would think the
lines
> of responsibility are clear, but they're not always.
>
> But we're 7 years into it, so have worked through a lot of stuff already.
> And still, it's a struggle to figure out how to get certain things done.
>
> I have a couple of suggestions:
>
> 1. Say in a friendly-but-firm voice what YOUR boundaries are, e.g. Please
> feel free to contact me when ... Be specific. Time, circumstance, after
> they've checked the manual, whatever. Then, when someone forgets, and they
> will, say you'd be happy to talk with them ... (time, circumstance, etc.)
>
> 2. If the issue comes before the board without going to the team, refer it
> on to the team. If you handle it, the expectation will be that you will
> continue to handle such things in the future. Remind the comm'ty at your
> comm'ty meeting, but the most powerful action you have is to simply NOT
act
> on the issue and turn it over to the most appropriate team. Will it take
> more time? Yes, that's partly why we did what we did. But you do have a
team
> structure in place, and that's where those actions need to occur.
>
> My .02 anyway,
>
>
> -- 
> Cheryl Charis-Graves
> Harmony Village Cohousing
> Golden, Colorado
> http://www.harmonyvillage.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list
> Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L


_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L