Talk:Agenda 17Nov12
Executive business section
Why?
I really don't like the way this has potential to label parts of the Board agenda by people rather than topic. If the Treasurer, Chair or Secretary want to report on something, then we have a reports segment so they can have their 5 minutes to report. If we have an issue to discuss, then it should be presented and discussed as an issue. Other normal functions of the Board such as declarations, approving past minutes (decisions and ratification of votes taken) are functions of the board, not functions of the Secretary.
Alternatively, please add a time for this section to end. That way I can read everyone's report the day before and turn up late after spending an extra hour in bed. --Fæ (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Even better would be making sure everyone reads the reports in advance and then the meeting just needs to be noting the report and discussing matters arising from the report. We were never very good at reading reports in advance when I was on the board, and it sounds like that hasn't changed, but it's not good... --Tango (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm reading this page, but haven't managed to find the time to reply until now - sorry. My aim in suggesting this section was to try to divide governance issues from programmatic issues - so trying to focus on topics rather than people. Personally, I'd like to see a clearer division between the things I present to the board in my role as secretary, and those that I present as a regular trustee, and I think it also makes sense to try to group those things from the different roles together in the agenda. I probably haven't suggested this in the best format, though, so I'd encourage you to edit the draft agenda to improve it before Chris as Chair works through it to finalise it. I'd note that approving minutes and checking declarations is definitely a board responsibility, but it does fall to the secretary to ensure that those things take place, hence why I've listed them under that role. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Membership
Hi Mike - in response to these actions arising from the Coventry board meeting (ACTION 6.1: SB will set up a blank page so that the community can discuss what questions we should ask if we were to do a general volunteer survey. and ACTION 6.2: KB (& others?) to work on a joining pack for new members.) I've set in motion a members survey and consultation on members strategy.
Do you think this should go on this agenda in the form of an update report, with with final recommendations to the December meeting? Or (given that its a busy agenda) would the Board prefer I just refer to the ongoing work in my staff report and present all membership items (strategy and draft joining pack) in a final version to be agreed in December? Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm - I must have heard someone say there would be, but having now checked the forward plan there is nothing written down (!) so either they were referring to a possible/potential board meeting or I'm in error. I suppose the question can stand whether there is a board meeting in December or Jan (There is one scheduled for 9th Jan) - all I want to know if if the Board want a full report with recommends for approval in two weeks time or later in the year, as I'd not been given an instruction re timescale in the action as minuted (such as 'By the next meeting') and given the amount of business on the agenda. Will do as asked either way :-) Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Attendence
I hope to attend this board meeting, purely in the capacity as a member of the chapter. I won't need any support to attend. I hope that will be possible. Many thanks Seddon (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- More than possible — the meetings are open and public, unless there are necessary topics that must be in-camera, in line with the values of the charity. The board would only expect some notification if you would like to have a slot on the agenda to make a presentation and, of course, it would be polite to let staff (or the Secretary) know who is intending to join the meeting for reasons of courtesy and to ensure we can plan to have sufficient space and refreshments. Thanks for thinking to drop this note in advance. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 03:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Security Policies
Sorry all - I really haven't been able to arrange to get these out their to the community for comment and re-draft and I think this is too important as a step to skip - I spent more time than anticipated in the last three weeks on tasks like recruiting the Office Support post and Membership survey.
I understand that Jon is presenting a report on strategic risk management, and it would seem appropriate to present policies and procedures as part of a response following this at the January meeting. I do hope that's OK - I will push on with getting the policies in the public domain and inviting comment at the
Final apology - I wasn't logged in when I edited the page (!) but it was me, and I can assure you I swore after hitting save changes... Katherine Bavage (WMUK) (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Backlog of in-camera votes - requested agenda item somewhere under 'Governance'
The board of trustees has a significant backlog of proposed decisions and draft board statements that require trustee votes or have been left open and unresolved after questions have been raised (there must be 10 or so by now, I'm not 100% sure as there list of open decisions on :office does not appear accurate?). In my opinion a wheel has dropped off this decision making process, and this should be on the agenda if we are going to fix it, particularly if we expect trustees to engage with on-line voting on the :office or :board wikis as part of meeting the Trustee Code of Conduct. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)