I concur with Joe.
I have been on many BoDs over the years with flows of actions ranging from
the ad hoc to the formal. Although one can self-nominate to the BoD (if
allowed by the Constitution and By-Laws), it is the BoD which first seeks
nominations to fill-in existing or future vacancies.
As far as removal of a D, it is a matter which is normally initiated and
discussed privately within the BoD.
With respect to minimum level of activity that a D needs to exert to remain
on the BoD, it is often described in the Constitution and By-Laws and all
the Ds should be aware of it. In most cases, the Ds are highly responsible
persons who would offer their resignation if they realize that they can no
longer full-fill such minimum level of activity. If there is currently no
clause in the Constitution and By-Laws addressing a minimum level of
activity that a D needs to have, then this needs to be addressed.
Regards,
Germain Labonté
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Joe Prostko <joe.prostko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Alexander von Gluck IV
<kallisti5@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In-line with the above, I purpose the following:
* bga is removed from the BOD due to lack of activity.
* Alexander von Gluck IV (myself) is voted in as a board member.
* Urias (at his discretion + approval) assumes the VP role formally
filled by bga.
I think this is a good idea and give my vote in favor: aye.
I'm not on the board, but surely there has to be a better way of doing
this, such as having a formal election annually (or some other set period)
or via bylaws that remove former board members given a certain amount of
inactivity.
Anyway, just my slight insight from having served on several BoDs over the
years.
Don't take this as meaning I disagree with what was proposed, but just
some improvements for the future.
- joe
