If asked what image “Chairman” instantly conjures up I would, sad to say, that it is a white older grandee type (as they mainly currently are). “Chairperson” instantly mixes that gender bias up whereas Chair conjures up a four legged wooden object...
I thought we might get this from you ;-). The MoU is part on an ODG worksteam and we can't pre-define the outcome of this work nor the democratic outcomes of any minor tweeks to the articles they might recommend. I'm speaking as someone who agrees with your concerns and, without second guessing myself, would need convincing that the current articles need adapting.
Lynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.
Quote from: Offwidth on November 25, 2018, 11:36:54 amLynn's role in this is to represent the membership, not easy in times of change, but her willingness to get out and about and face real concerns is very obvious.“Representing the membership” on this topic would most obviously be interpreted as being in favour of additional mechanisms, influence or power that the NC can have over the Board’s decision making such as 1.2.1 quoted above.
Also when Lynn says the MoU will be used to hold the Board to account she is of course a member of the Board and party to decision making and able to report back.
Getting acceptance of 1.2.1 might be seen as a victory for the membership but it would also be a loss for the organisation in terms of decision making and good governance in my view.
What does holding to account mean anyway in practical terms ? That there is a way of punishing the board by summoning them and sacking members if they do things that NC don’t like?
Looking at the MoU Group's Terms of Reference I am really surprised that it was endorsed by NC as it is a real hotch potch.
In Dennis' s day in charge if the BMC, by reporting such handbags to the police climbers would have been laughed out of the organisation.