Talk:Board meetings/Executive Working Group
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Comment
I think that this policy was partially encouraged by concerns of what the exec was doing. If this is the case then I'd like to know answers to these questions
- What can the executive do/ (not do even) if the situations demands
- There has to be a level of judgement, but the scope is for "operational matters". Where documents, decisions or agreements may permanently change how WMUK interprets its mission (such as the nature of our relationship with WMF or the services we offer our community) then I would say these are outside that scope. --Fæ 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- What can the executive not do normally
- Make policy changes, these would go back to the board. This is not the same as necessary procedural, practices or guideline changes to deliver the operation plan and the difference could usefully be detailed by Jon when writing up some of our procedures. It's hard to define normal, but the list above could be expanded to give further examples as they occur. --Fæ 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Four people, how many votes? What happens if there is a split vote? Victuallers 12:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Others attending also have a vote. In my original version of this text I had the Chair as an optional member of the Exec (i.e. they can attend as often as they like but the Exec can meet without their mandatory attendance) as now we have a full time CEO, this would give a core of 3 people again (and have the benefit of giving our Chairman more time for other stuff); as the Chair do you have a preference? Personally I don't like resorting to "umpires", if there was a split vote you can always re-vote after another minute of discussion, get one or more available trustees on the phone to express an opinion or defer for a board meeting if the nature of the decision permits. --Fæ 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is unusual to let people not on a subcommittee vote just because they turned up. That could result in all kinds of weird politics where a vote is swung by non-members on one side of a dispute turning up without the knowledge of non-members on the other side. I would strongly recommend against any such rule. --Tango 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree Victuallers 10:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is unusual to let people not on a subcommittee vote just because they turned up. That could result in all kinds of weird politics where a vote is swung by non-members on one side of a dispute turning up without the knowledge of non-members on the other side. I would strongly recommend against any such rule. --Tango 23:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Others attending also have a vote. In my original version of this text I had the Chair as an optional member of the Exec (i.e. they can attend as often as they like but the Exec can meet without their mandatory attendance) as now we have a full time CEO, this would give a core of 3 people again (and have the benefit of giving our Chairman more time for other stuff); as the Chair do you have a preference? Personally I don't like resorting to "umpires", if there was a split vote you can always re-vote after another minute of discussion, get one or more available trustees on the phone to express an opinion or defer for a board meeting if the nature of the decision permits. --Fæ 12:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Amendments
I've given the draft a bit of a rewrite. In my view, the value in having the Executive is that it helps coordinate the work of the officers and the Chief Executive, and provides a forum for additional support and/or scrutiny as required in between Board meetings. Equally, "implementing agreed operational plans" is now the Chief Exec's job, not the Executive Committee's. The Land (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- "The purpose of the Executive Committee is to aid co-ordination between the Officers and senior staff." If I assume that "Officers" is the Chair, Secretary and Treasurer (for some reason excluding Doug), then this appears to increase the authority of the Officers above any other Board members as the Exec is apparently not representing anyone else. Perhaps you might think of re-phrasing this? By the way, if you want to introduce a word like 'Officers' then it must be defined. --Fæ (talk) 18:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand. What does representation have to do with it? If it's about aiding co-ordination, then why would it need to represent anyone? "Officer" probably should be defined somewhere - any Trustee is an officer under some definitions (eg. Companies Act 2006 s1121(2), which defines who counts as an officer when determining the liability of officers for a breach of the Act). --Tango (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first line to be much more explicit as who is being coordinated - as described above. Have I misunderstood anything? Filceolaire (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)