Alan Greenberg wrote:
Once on the Board, the person is indeed a free agent. But you want to try to pick a person that, will espouse the same values and intents of the larger group - a group that of course, may not be of a single mind on many issues. My worry if the process is too focused at the ALS level and not sufficiently including the RALO leadership and ALAC, that there may be a significant split between THAT group (the ones that are ultimately charged with meeting ALAC commitments and targets) and the Board member. Essentially, I am saying that if selection of the Board member becomes a popularity contest, we may be in trouble.
Any really democratic process is, by definition, a popularity contest. The challenge is making sure we have created the right criteria for being popular. :-) One luxury of having two reps (if we indeed get them) is that they do not have to be selected the same way. One could be the choice of ALAC+RALOleaders, the other could be the subject of an ALS-wide process that has some anti-"gaming" guidelines built in. If we have a scenario in which (for example) the ALSs as a whole are more militant/pro-active than ALAC, the two reps could (and IMO should) represent that diversity of approach.
Your last paragraph is interesting and will require additional discussion.
The idea simply stemmed from an interest in keeping the reps in tune with At-Large; even though they would owe no accountability I would hope that a measure such as this would maximize bi-directional communications. I have very much appreciated Wendy's participation at ALAC and NARALO meetings, and would want to keep similar contact vibrant beyond a transition from accountable liaison to "free agent" reps.
I have not really looked into the issue of whether a current Board member can still sit on a SO. Without checking, I suspect that the current rules do not forbid it, but that most resign from their original post as they cannot be expected to fulfill those obligations at the same time as being a board member. That is why I am suggestion that the positions be ex-officio and over-and-above the current 15. If there are logistical or optical difficulties the positions could be made non-voting and/or not counted in quorums or performance measurements.
If this recommendation does ultimately get approved by the Board, we will have to act quickly to put a process in place, so I thank you for kicking off the discussion.
There is a natural and understandable caution to not want to jeopardize Board approval of two At-Large reps by already anticipating it in our planning. However, if and when the approval does happen we will need to be expedient in determining a selection process, and we might as well start now. In any case, I defer the credit of "kicking off the discussion" to the person that started this email thread in the first place :-). - Evan