That would be the point of ( a position that has already existed in the past) is to help spread the load of an impossible task from just the board onto another third party to help accomplish more, in a more efficient and effective way! Nobody can say that having more hands on deck would in any way shape or form be a negative, and the only logic behind fewer people in control would literally be to just consolidate power(which would be a scary mind set to be a proponent for in a democratic arena) so it’s not creating a new unheard of position, it’s just reinstating a preciously occupied position to help with the task at hand! .!??..!!!,…. (Go ahead and sprinkle these in as you see fit, hopefully you take this equally as lighthearted and funny)
The intent better be clear too. We’ve had past (now banned) members who wanted to use it for nefarious purposes.
But this might be a big reason people don’t feel comfortable going all the way to the board and why an intermediary is necessary, cause there always seems to be negative effects of honest intentions without an intermediary
President as Compliance Officer
The President will act as Compliance Officer and is responsible for ensuring that all complaints about unethical or illegal conduct are investigated and resolved. The President will advise the Board of Directors of all complaints and their resolution and will report, at least annually, to the Treasurer on compliance activity relating to accounting or alleged financial improprieties.
I found this passage which relatively sums up my point I’m trying to make from our wiki
So these policy are also beating a dead horse if anyone brings them up!
- Everyone must sign a liability waiver.
- Sleeping within DMS is not permitted. Naps are not prohibited, provided the nap is less than 20 minutes in length, and the member is not laying down in a prone position. Sleeping will only be considered a nap while in the upright sitting position.
- All members are expected to maintain a safe and clean environment at all times.
- Smoking cigarettes/cigars, use of vaporizers (also known as electronic cigarettes) is not allowed inside the building.
- No pets allowed in the building.
- Don’t catch fire, set others on fire, or set anything on fire which has not been designated or designed to be on fire.
- Harmful behavior, harrassment, stalking, theft, hazing, and otherwise being the opposite of excellent is unacceptable.
Because they were taken from the exact same doncumwnt I took the previous from
A membership approved third party that is supposed to do what the board says, but is separated from the board and can’t be removed by the board (this is a requirement; otherwise, the position is always at the mercy of the board and not independent)?
I don’t understand what incentive there is for someone to do what the board asks if the board does not have any influence over their position? What you have basically just suggested we create is what I would essentially call a shadow board member that is not even accountable to the other board members and therefore has even more power to do as they please so long as they don’t violate any of the rules. History has shown that it is very easy to screw over DMS without violating its rules. Stupidity gets creative.
This person is subject to the same pressures and incentives to bad behavior as any board member would be. A membership that is attentive enough to keep this member advocate accountable would be attentive enough to where such an advocate would be pointless in the first place because they would just be able to hold the board accountable. In such a case, direct communication is preferable.
Now accountable for what? No idea. It’s not clear to me that the board has been a hostile or disruptive entity. In fact, quite the opposite. All the people I can think of who have been disciplined pretty much all deserved it and we are almost certainly better without them here. We in science committee can definitely tell you from experience.
No the member ship voted would be so thst it’s a person who the majority of the membership would feel comfortable coming to with issues and problems, and then as our wiki states above they would facilitate and make sure they got resolved that’s the only point to the voting in is so that it’s a person the membership feels comfortable with if there’s say a situation where someone’s being harassed and had multiple anti harassment rules violated, they’d feel comfortable coming to them with it! Other than that they’d be under the full control of the board
And you obviously haven’t read a very thorough very detail admission from a member who outstanding personifies them about why what I’m saying is necessary
Look I can tell you’ve done a lot of internet debates, but you should know that adults don’t talk this way. I don’t care who admitted what. I care about what works and what doesn’t work; what makes sense and what doesn’t make sense. If there was a very thorough and detailed discussion already, then you’ve done it a very thorough and incoherent disservice.
How does your argument that the elected individual would be fine because the membership voted for them not equally apply to the board? By your reasoning, the members elected the board so clearly they must feel comfortable coming to them with issues and problems. Additionally, you are missing the point I made about accountability. What is to stop this elected person from just refusing to do what the board asks and behaving in a self-serving manner? The board can’t get rid of them. The members will only get rid of them if they care enough about the relationship between the board and the advocate, which is unlikely. Will we just wait through yet another election cycle to try our hand at the dice with another shadow board member? The only realistic solution is to allow the board to get rid of this person. If the board can get rid of this person, then the entire position is pointless because you can’t be neutral with respect to a person who can actually fire you from your position.
Laws and rules are just paper if there is no way for the people in charge to punish people who don’t behave in their interest.
There is no such thing as a person who everyone is comfortable around. Whether you are comfortable approaching someone is going to reflect your own personality as much as it will reflect theirs. That’s a big reason why we want a board with different kinds of people on it. People can just talk to whichever board member they will be most comfortable with. You have choice in the board scenario! You don’t have to talk with them all at once.
You’re absolutely right, adults never debate or contrast ideas, frankly the college debate league is a hoax! But before you make yourself feel like you have a valid point the board is sufficient and there’s no need to have anybody cause all claims and issues have been handled, cases closed nice and neat! You should really go find the admission in reference that way you’ll have all the information available to them form your opinion off of! And after you have im more than willing to discuss this with you in an adult manner but not until
Oh and by the way for the last 7 years we’ve had a president, void this year so it’s not some foreign process or position
This spectator can only agree that an ineffable something is being beaten. Whether it’s dead, a horse, or a dead horse isn’t particularly apparent.
Yea it could be the clearly laid out structure from our wiki that’s being beaten
The current president position that exists is completely different from what you are suggesting, since the president would be bound by the general officer charter. The position you advocated for would be completely foreign to DMS since a neutral party cannot, by definition, be bound by the general officer charter. So long as they are bound by that charter, they are completely at the mercy of the board and will thus strongly prefer the interests of the board over the interests of the membership. This defeats the entire purpose of what you claim you are setting out to do. In fact, what I am saying is so obvious that I am led to believe that you have not been honest about your intentions at all since I couldn’t imagine a person acting in good faith over the age of 10 not noticing how glaringly bad your comparison is.
Where are you getting all this neutral party nonsense! Here fine let me simply what I’m suggesting, I suggest we appoint a president to help solve some issues and complaints filed get resolved as to not lead to our policy laid out on the wiki to start to just dissolve, cause as I posted before one of the presidents jobs is to do just that, and the logic of on who’d be in favor of consolidating power vs dispersing it(as we’ve done for 7 years till now) would be a very scary premise to stand with
This discussion while interesting has no actionable outcome. We cannot even gather enough votes to make some badly needed updates to the bylaws. What percentage of the membership would be voting for this member advocate? 2-3%, hardly a mandate.
Suggesting you do a Talk search using the keyword “mediation”. - going all the way back to 2017. Do the search, do the deep read and you’ll have a better understanding of the history of this subject.
No you’re right, history shows only good things happen to democratic society when they start consolidating power! Always turns out well
Everyone!!
If you are going to watch only one movie this year having to do with red-eyed killer llamas from outer space, it really should be this one:
