| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 7:31 AM Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Its not finding Trustees that's the real issue its finding Foundation officers. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
That assumes you're happy as long as any warm body takes the position. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Adding three individuals to the list of potential candidates for trustees |
| 9 |
> will do nothing to help the foundation if those candidates will not/cannot |
| 10 |
> be officers. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
If they better represent the will of the members then they would help |
| 13 |
the foundation even if they won't be officers. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Whether that is the case or not is up to the members to decide, of |
| 16 |
course. Why deny them the opportunity to vote for (or against) |
| 17 |
council members? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If you look at the expressed frustrations over the past year, they |
| 20 |
generally don't pertain to the activities of the officers, but of the |
| 21 |
Trustees. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't disagree that lack of interest in Officer positions is also |
| 24 |
harmful to the Foundation, but what is the point in even having a |
| 25 |
Foundation in good standing if it doesn't do the things its members |
| 26 |
want it to do? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Note - the above might come across a bit strong, and I apologize in |
| 29 |
advance for that. Ultimately nobody can really pretend to claim that |
| 30 |
the Trustees do/don't represent the will of the members short of |
| 31 |
having a vote, and of course the Trustees we have were elected. I |
| 32 |
just think that when we have an election we should give the members as |
| 33 |
much choice as possible in who they are able to elect, and let them |
| 34 |
make the judgment as to who does/doesn't have time to do the job/etc. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Rich |
Archives