| 1 |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 05:16:33PM -0400, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > > So my objection in private is the same as my objection in public. In |
| 5 |
> > theory |
| 6 |
> > > the current board is accountable to the foundation members. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > In reality, they are not accountable legally. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I don't follow. Why not? The board already has a duty of care to operate |
| 12 |
> the nonprofit. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Have you read the current by-laws? Limits of liability specifically? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > > The board (for years) has not operated the NPO properly. Assuming that we |
| 20 |
> > > successfully shut down the current NPO and make a new NPO and transfer |
| 21 |
> > the |
| 22 |
> > > assets from old to new; how will the new NPO operate better than the old |
| 23 |
> > > one? |
| 24 |
> > > |
| 25 |
> > |
| 26 |
> > I can't garauntee anything. It is a risk we take, but as mentioned, I am |
| 27 |
> > willing to help get it started. If it is kept up with it isn't overly |
| 28 |
> > complicated. |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > Additionally, the new by-laws would *legally* hold trustees accountable |
| 31 |
> > for failure in due diligence. Of course, that will probably slim down |
| 32 |
> > the pool of available individuals willing to run for the seats. |
| 33 |
> > Conversely, it will stop people just keeping seats warm. |
| 34 |
> > |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> So to summarize: |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> A bunch of new bylaws will get voted in. |
| 39 |
> The board is supposed to follow the bylaws. |
| 40 |
> If they fail to follow the bylaws...what happens? |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> My general assertion is that "the same thing that happens when the board |
| 43 |
> fails in their duty now" which is nothing and the NPO is continually |
| 44 |
> mismanaged until it falls into disrepair and then is heroically rescued. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> But I suspect the answer will be similar "wait and see for b-mans proposed |
| 47 |
> bylaws which will clarify everything" so I'll just wait patiently. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> -A |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
I never said wait and see my proposal. I said what I *am* writing into |
| 53 |
the by-laws. Of course, writing them and being thorough is much |
| 54 |
different than just explaining intent over a mailing list. So, I hope |
| 55 |
you are not awaiting an epiphany or something. I have explained it |
| 56 |
already. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If it were as easy as, "I will vote to let someone else handle it" then |
| 59 |
it would have been done... years ago? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Cheers, |
| 63 |
Aaron |
Archives