<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>Kathy, Galen and all, <br><br>I have spent some time combing through archived copies of the Rules of Governance. There is currently not a definition for Board member terms of service. Whether we go with 7 or 9 members, we also need to specify the term limit...2 or 3 years. Nine (9) members could easily rotate off every three years, which is what I remember being in one of our original drafts of the document. <br><br>Elizabeth<br><br><div><span name="x"></span>Elizabeth McKinney <br>PINES Program Director <br>Georgia Public Library Service <br>A Unit of the University System of Georgia<br>1800 Century Place, Suite 150<br>Atlanta GA 30345<br>404.235.7141<br>emckinney@georgialibraries.org<br>http://www.georgialibraries.org/<br><br><br><br><span name="x"></span><br></div><br><hr id="zwchr"><div style="color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>From: </b>"Kathy Lussier" <klussier@masslnc.org><br><b>To: </b>eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org<br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:45:18 AM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [Eg-oversight-board] Proposal: reduce the size of the EOB<br><br>+1 from me to leaner Board. I had been thinking 9 might be a good number <br>so that we would have an equal number of people up for reelection every <br>year, but I don't feel strongly about that number.<br><br>I lean towards gradually reducing the Board over two years. We have <br>several Board members who have only been on the Board for a year. In my <br>personal experience, I found that the first year was necessary to get up <br>to speed with how the Board works and how I could make a contribution. <br>I'm must concerned it's a very short period for them to serve before <br>being put on a ballot again.<br><br>Kathy<br><br>Kathy Lussier<br>Project Coordinator<br>Massachusetts Library Network Cooperative<br>(508) 343-0128<br>klussier@masslnc.org<br>Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/kmlussier<br><br>On 1/16/2014 9:38 AM, Chauncey Montgomery wrote:<br>> Galen,<br>> What you have outlined seems reasonable. I agree with the smaller <br>> group being more agile. There are several other boards I serve on (or <br>> work with) and it seems that the smaller groups are more efficient and <br>> also more engaged.<br>> Chauncey<br>><br>><br>> On 01/15/2014 08:09 PM, Galen Charlton wrote:<br>>> Hi,<br>>><br>>> As we have elections coming up during the Evergreen conference, I<br>>> would like to float a proposal to reduce the size of the EOB to<br>>> streamline decision-making and encourage broader ground-up<br>>> participation in project activities.<br>>><br>>> The EOB has certain direct functions that do not require that there be<br>>> eleven members. For example, liaising with Conservancy on trademark<br>>> matters does not require the direct involvement of many people.<br>>><br>>> There are some activities where the board authorizes expenditure and<br>>> receipt of funds held in trust for the project, and those of course<br>>> must remain in its remit. However, both the conference committee and<br>>> the merchandising committee take most of their membership from outside<br>>> the board. Other groups, such as the developers, DIG, and the web<br>>> team, have board members that participate, but to date those groups<br>>> have not requested significant draws on project funds, nor have they<br>>> required EOB supervision in order to perform their functions.<br>>><br>>> Besides working with Conservancy on the oversight of project funds,<br>>> where I see a major role for the board is as a (though not /the/)<br>>> nexus for identifying and obtaining resources to further community<br>>> goals. However, I believe that a smaller group would be able to serve<br>>> that function more nimbly.<br>>><br>>> I propose that the EOB be reduced to seven members via attrition.<br>>> There are four EOB positions that are coming vacant; we could choose<br>>> to amend the rules of governance to not fill them (although if we do<br>>> it in fell swoop, we should give thought to having some of the<br>>> remaining positions be made open for election so that the overall<br>>> community does not end up waiting two years to elect new<br>>> representatives). We could also take two years at this, reducing the<br>>> board to 9 for the upcoming year and to 7 in 2015.<br>>><br>>> I welcome feedback on this proposal.<br>>><br>>> Regards,<br>>><br>>> Galen<br>>><br>> _______________________________________________<br>> eg-oversight-board mailing list<br>> eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org<br>> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>eg-oversight-board mailing list<br>eg-oversight-board@list.evergreen-ils.org<br>http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board<br></div><br></div></body></html>