American Canyoneers - iBod Interim Board of Directors

[ratagonia]

How to go about selecting an interim Board of Directors?

I find myself thinking that getting an iBod quickly is more important than having a truly democratic process. I think the goals of the iBOD are:

1. to hold elections by (some date) via a transparent and reasonable process.

2. set up things like a checking account, incorporation, reserve the web domains, etc.

3. set up a process for taking member's money. Spending by acclamation of the iBod only.

Thus (perhaps), I think there are many people who can do a good job of the above items. It is essentially a trustee job.

I think the eventual mission should be worked out by the real BOD after the first election. Or perhaps in parallel with the work above, via an open, democratic process.

Or?

Please discuss.

Tom

[Bshelton]

Agreed.

At some point we have to accomplish short term goals in order to get the overall objective completed.

I suggest we put an initial 5 names together that have some sort of experience or expertise in different areas(e.g., elections process, finance, web domains, non-profit filing ect..). Those individuals with this experience and time can post their willingness to serve here on Bogley along with a brief summery of experience in given area. We give an initial blessing via Bogley and were off to the races.

If too many individuals put their name in the hat and are not chosen they will just have to understand that this is not an official election. There is no room to complain nor a process to fight it. It is a short term, task orientated, trustee position. ( we will have an election soon enough)

Right now we need individuals with time and experience to get things "set up".

[ratagonia]

I was more thinking of emphasis on "Trustee". People that have wide support in the community, are known for their diplomacy, who have little propensity to run their own agenda, who can work for the benefit of the community. And drawn from a wide range of people. Bogleyites and Canyons Groupies: (What's next, Goats marrying rocks???)

Resources for actually doing stuff can be roped in from other players.

Notice I carefully excluded myself via more than one point...:crazy:

For instance, I think Nat Smale demonstrates these qualities and would make a good member.

Tom

[Bshelton]

I am not suggesting that an "unknown" be put in this position in fact just the opposite. I am only suggesting that we get a list of experienced, known individuals that also have the time, and name them.

I'm sure that anyone who cannot be trusted will surely be "called out" here on Bogley ( there seems to be no lack of shyness in that arena here)

This will allow the preverbal ball to begin rolling.

[Iceaxe]

I believe we should get a list of nominations and see if they will except?

We can keep the list in the first post, which Tom or any moderator can edit and keep current.

We should probably have two lists in the first post. Those nominated and those excepting.

Since this is an iBOD I don't think we should put any restrictions on who can serve. I hope to see at least a dozen members which should dilute any personal agendas. If the list of candidates gets to long we can hold some type of simple election to trim things down. Those serving on the iBOD need to be good at organizing and executing, not necessary a canyon guru.

Anyhoo.... thats my 2 cents on getting the ball rolling. :cool2:

[nat]

I was more thinking of emphasis on "Trustee". People that have wide support in the community, are known for their diplomacy, who have little propensity to run their own agenda, who can work for the benefit of the community. And drawn from a wide range of people. Bogleyites and Canyons Groupies: (What's next, Goats marrying rocks???)

Resources for actually doing stuff can be roped in from other players.

Notice I carefully excluded myself via more than one point...:crazy:

For instance, I think Nat Smale demonstrates these qualities and would make a good member.

Tom

Thanks Tom, I just read this and hadn't been following the discussion. I would be willing to help out, but I have to admit that I don't have much tech savy as far as websites and so forth go, or knowing much about non-profits and corresponding legal issues.

Nat

[ratagonia]

Thanks Tom, I just read this and hadn't been following the discussion. I would be willing to help out, but I have to admit that I don't have much tech savy as far as websites and so forth go, or knowing much about non-profits and corresponding legal issues.

Nat

Thank you Nat. I think there are many people with various skills that can be drawn on.

Tom

[shagdeuce]

One potential pitfall that I believe should be purposely avoided is having the BOD dominated by a certain segment of the canyoneering community. This has been said before in reference to getting a healthy mix of Bogley, ACA, and Yahoo members, but I would also suggest that a healthy mix of weekend warriors, guides, youth leaders, etc. would be good. The catch-22, of course, is that it may only be the guiding community that has the time, strong interest, and broad respect/support from the community to serve on the board.

If the BOD consists of only guides, then I would be concerned that the other groups won't be represented with regards to access issues (which seems to be the primary focus of the new orginization right now). For example, Oak Creek (the Zion version) is exclusive to ZAC right now. A guide-driven board will have a conflict of interest in situations such as these. Do they fight to keep canyons open to everyone or do they argue that limiting access to guides keeps out the riff-raff? I'm not suggesting anything along those lines happened with regards to Oak Creek (I have no idea), but I bring it up as an example of a current access issue.

[restrac2000]

Shag,

I actually don't think most guides will want to work on the BOD, at least the owners. They actually don't have much time, at least during the ever-extending SW Utah canyon season (I use to work 12-15 days in a row, 12-15 hours a day much of the year). The winter provides a much needed time to recuperate, train and plan for the next season. Not to mention it can be dangerous to be associated with an organization if it ever develops tensions with other stakeholders, land managers or the like. I would be shocked if the BOD consists of more than 1/4 guides or owners.

I myself lobby for digging deeper than the aforementioned groups. The canyoneering community isn't really divided into Bogley-ites, Yahoo-ers and ACA-minded folks. Some canyoneers just happen to use those forums. Eventually it would be nice to find non-forums methods of finding canyoneers to increase its representation of the much broader "community".

As mentioned in the past, if the organization succeeds long enough, an potential BOD member will be elected not for notoriety or personality but for their platform. Time will tell.

Phillip