Talk:Draft report on sub-committees: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(cmt) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I've made one change (while logged out I see). The basic starter kit is: Executive, Finance (inc. Audit), Governance, & maybe Operations & Membership. With (currently) a very small board, the need for them lessens, but they are a way of engaging non-trustees, & those staff members not at every board meeting. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | :I've made one change (while logged out I see). The basic starter kit is: Executive, Finance (inc. Audit), Governance, & maybe Operations & Membership. With (currently) a very small board, the need for them lessens, but they are a way of engaging non-trustees, & those staff members not at every board meeting. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
:See also the draft at [[General Committee Charter]]. Generally a board "sub-committee" would have its voting membership restricted to board members, often with staff as "observers" - as in councils etc. Plain "committee" is probably a better term for the mixed-member bodies we envisage. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | :See also the draft at [[General Committee Charter]]. Generally a board "sub-committee" would have its voting membership restricted to board members, often with staff as "observers" - as in councils etc. Plain "committee" is probably a better term for the mixed-member bodies we envisage. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
::This is a very important point. "Sub-committee of the WMUK board" and "WMUK committee" are two very different things. The education committee, for instance, is the latter. The Executive committee (if formally constituted as a committee with delegated authority - I think it's just a "working group" now) is the former. I think they should be treated completely separately, any attempt to treat them together as this report is trying to do will just lead to confusion. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:24, 1 February 2013
We have been thinking about this for a while. The person originally doing this has been a bit overwhelmed by other things so I put this together with the help of staff and Doug as a way forward. Thoughts pleaseJon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've made one change (while logged out I see). The basic starter kit is: Executive, Finance (inc. Audit), Governance, & maybe Operations & Membership. With (currently) a very small board, the need for them lessens, but they are a way of engaging non-trustees, & those staff members not at every board meeting. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- See also the draft at General Committee Charter. Generally a board "sub-committee" would have its voting membership restricted to board members, often with staff as "observers" - as in councils etc. Plain "committee" is probably a better term for the mixed-member bodies we envisage. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a very important point. "Sub-committee of the WMUK board" and "WMUK committee" are two very different things. The education committee, for instance, is the latter. The Executive committee (if formally constituted as a committee with delegated authority - I think it's just a "working group" now) is the former. I think they should be treated completely separately, any attempt to treat them together as this report is trying to do will just lead to confusion. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)