BoDDev/Min2005Oct5

October 5, 2005

Present: Agathe,Steve,Joe,Mike

Check-In

(Last meeting was forming. This meeting is "storming".)

resume discussion of best way to increase capacity Joe and Steve indicated preference for recruitment. Mike's suggestion: improve implementation of orientation before attempting further recruitment;need for greater clarity of role

Job descriptions to date are not specific to roles.

Need to transcend the minimum expectation of meeting attendance. Some people join the Board in good faith just to keep it going until it gets better.A clearer orientation helps select new people, and allows them to begin with a more accurate notion of what is expected of them.

Agathe agreed with this, but need to be alert to possible good candidates.

Don't forget: Capacity=numbers X skill X experience X motivation

Joe:work has been done on orientation;implementation needs to be improved

Steve:historical constraints have made it difficult to insist on lengthy orientation

Mike: it might be easier to attract the right kind of person if the orientation was pursued systematically; might convey a more positive impression of mutual commitment

Suggestion to review existing documentation of role descriptions and orientation, with a view to clarifying implementation in recruitment of future Board members.

If you had a suitable Board member, what would he/she do??

Historically,in our policy, there are four Board committees. These require chairs and members:policy(chaired by secretary), funding(chaired by treasurer); staff liason(chaired by VP); Board Dev(chaired by chair)

(We need to have a more accessible form of policy, so that such matters are used more. )

Next step: Board discussion of priorities e.g., develop committees, or outreach

The outreach role requires a high degree of familiarity with the organization and motivation (self-direction, self-starting).

The committee development orientation is easier to structure and manage.

Ideally, the mission of the PERC included reflection on social change priorities and strategies.

Task: Retrieve and review existing documentation. (Would require Mike and Agathe to locate materials not on line.) Agendize the orientation priority for next Board meeting.

Next meeting:November 2, 4:30-6:30

November 2, 2005

Board Committees

1. Board Development: chaired by Chair;works to improve Board capacity

2. Funding Working Group: chaired by Treasurer; liaison with Fundraising; leadership outreach (e.g. speaking engagements, sponsorships, partnerships

3. Policy: chaired by Secretary; review policy and suggest necessary changes

4. Staff Relations: Other Board members would sit on staff committees as   observers or (less often) participants

We considered the possibility of fromally recognizing two classes of Board members; one pro-active and one (associate) who would help to review plans, ask questions and make suggestions.

PERC volunteers are expected to do three hours of work per week. Why not Board members?

Another terminology for a two-tier active-internal model:

Builder: first choice

Sustainer: second choice

Pros and Cons

Pros

-increased Board involvement in PERC committees; can assist -self-monitoring;capable of growth in capacity -outward model is precluded by volunteer transience and abstract goals

Cons difficult to implement;i.e., recruit -possibility of micro-managing (can be avoided by good orientation)

The minimalist model creates a problem of legitimacy and credibility since so many volunteers do so much more work.

Board effectiveness requires first-hand appreciation of organizational dynamics.

Minimum Requirements for Each Type of Board Member

Builder: 12 hr/month, including work on a Board committee Sustainer: 6 hr/month one Board meeting + one other meeting

Next meeting: Create a profile of a candidate

Next meeting after: Create a strategy for finding a candidate.