1 |
Roy Bamford wrote: |
2 |
> The three remaining trustees were also nominated to stand for election |
3 |
> for the council. Had they all accepted and been elected to the council, |
4 |
> today we would be in the position of having trustees being a subset of |
5 |
> council. That would have totally destroyed the council/foundation split |
6 |
> that was one of the reasons the two bodies were created. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> We need rules to stop that situation from occuring. |
9 |
> |
10 |
|
11 |
Is this the case? That we need to stop the council/trustees from |
12 |
overlapping? Is it true that the council/foundation split was one of |
13 |
the reasons the two bodies were created? |
14 |
|
15 |
My understanding is that the reason we have two bodies is so that people |
16 |
can contribute to either the council and/or the trustees based on their |
17 |
enthusiasm or ability to contribute, without being required to |
18 |
contribute to both. Also - due to the foundation being a US corporation |
19 |
it is likely the case that we can't have non-US-residents holding board |
20 |
positions. So, the split is a practical matter - not a matter of |
21 |
principle per se. |
22 |
|
23 |
I wasn't seriously involved back when the trustees were created so I |
24 |
won't presume to argue that I really know all the reasons for it being a |
25 |
separate body. However, I don't think that really matters - the only |
26 |
thing that matters is if we think it should be forced to be such today. |
27 |
|
28 |
In my opinion the benefits of joint council/trustee membership outweigh |
29 |
the downside. However, I'm sure things will go on fine either way - |
30 |
I'll trust the trustees/council to make the right decision. |