| 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. |
Archives