976
edits
Board Minutes January 2015: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Anna Vesala (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''These minutes | '''''These minutes were approved at the [[Board Minutes February 2015|February 2015]] board meeting.''''' | ||
== EBC Board Meeting Minutes for January 21, 2015 == | == EBC Board Meeting Minutes for January 21, 2015 == | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
* Discussion: | * Discussion: | ||
**Rachel: Who decides who gets hired? Geoff: ED if current structure is in place. Jon: ED gathers applications, reviews appl, makes short list for board consideration, ED and board interview, ED made recommendations, board approve. | **Rachel: Who decides who gets hired? Geoff: ED if current structure is in place. Jon: ED gathers applications, reviews appl, makes short list for board consideration, ED and board interview, ED made recommendations, board approve. | ||
**Anna: I dislike the hierarchical structure. Value equal pay, equal power to staff who each have strong job responsibilities. EBC is | **Anna: I dislike the hierarchical structure. Value equal pay, equal power to staff who each have strong job responsibilities. EBC is not a large organization and 2-5 staff would not be difficult to self-organize then report to board. | ||
**Dan: Reporting structure vs organizational structure. More than 3-5 people, you need to roll info up. How we organize info for communication with an ED allows reports to go from many staff to one to the board. We are not looking for a hierarchical structure so much as an effective | **Dan: Reporting structure vs organizational structure. More than 3-5 people, you need to roll info up. How we organize info for communication with an ED allows reports to go from many staff to one to the board. We are not looking for a hierarchical structure so much as an effective reporting. | ||
**Nancy: historical HR issues is reason for recommendation of coaching/mentoring plan. How do we support Chris to gain the skills required to manage staff | **Nancy: historical HR issues is reason for recommendation of coaching/mentoring plan. How do we support Chris to gain the skills required to manage staff? Mentoring will tell us whether or not Chris is comfortable/capable of that role. HR will be an actively managed piece. Cant have flat structure without an admin committee and current HR committee was not interested in the admin committee side of things. | ||
**Geoff: This can evolve; if we try it, it doesn't work, we can make changes. | **Geoff: This can evolve; if we try it, it doesn't work, we can make changes. | ||
**Nancy: Wrote the job descriptions based on perceived roles rather than current employees. | **Nancy: Wrote the job descriptions based on perceived roles rather than current employees. | ||
**Coreen: Hierarchical structure is simpler, easier, familiar. But if we go toward flatter structure and figure out roles, reporting, responsibilities, it may be opportunity. | **Coreen: Hierarchical structure is simpler, easier, familiar. But if we go toward flatter structure and figure out roles, reporting, responsibilities, it may be opportunity. Staff can develop skills. Concerned that if board support is needed and we know that board members are volunteers (and busy) whereas staff are part or full time to manage ourselves and react/change as needed. | ||
**Nancy: I am committed to support Chris in the time to learn/mentor this role. Staff will need to hold board/committee accountable to this new structure. | **Nancy: I am committed to support Chris in the time to learn/mentor this role. Staff will need to hold board/committee accountable to this new structure. | ||
**Jon: Echo Nancy's comments. I am available. WRT hierarchical structure, when you have new people and new roles, likelihood of succeeding of productivity is more successful in hierarchy. Once they are comfortable in roles, that's when flat structure may be more useful. | **Jon: Echo Nancy's comments. I am available. WRT hierarchical structure, when you have new people and new roles, likelihood of succeeding of productivity is more successful in hierarchy. Once they are comfortable in roles, that's when flat structure may be more useful. | ||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
*Discussion: | *Discussion: | ||
**Nancy: Are board volunteer hours included in advocacy activities? Jon: Staff time and hours do count, any purchases of print material/campaigning/etc do count. EBC could use 12.5% of our resources toward political activity at a max. | **Nancy: Are board volunteer hours included in advocacy activities? Jon: Staff time and hours do count, any purchases of print material/campaigning/etc do count. EBC could use 12.5% of our resources toward political activity at a max. | ||
**Chris: Partisan activity is never permitted. | **Chris: Partisan activity is never permitted. Political activity is restricted to 10% of financial resources for charities. What constitutes "political activity" is well-defined by the CRA (and does not necessarily include what many people would consider political). [http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/chrts-gvng/chrts/plcy/cps/cps-022-eng.html Info] and [http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/vdgllry/chrts-gvng/srs-pltclctvts-eng.html more info]. | ||
**Dan: CPAWS is a charity and does a lot of good advocacy work. EBC has a lot of non-advocacy programs so i dont think we would find this difficult. | **Dan: CPAWS is a charity and does a lot of good advocacy work. EBC has a lot of non-advocacy programs so i dont think we would find this difficult. | ||
**Alex: could we give money to another org (non charity) to do advocacy? | **Alex: could we give money to another org (non charity) to do advocacy? | ||
**Chris: Political is defined by CRA as anything trying to influence policy. We can only donate to other charities. This would affect our relationship to Bikeology (but that org is undergoing dramatic changes this year too). | **Chris: Political is defined by CRA as anything trying to influence policy. We can only donate to other charities. This would affect our relationship to Bikeology (but that org is undergoing dramatic changes this year too). We can still partner with other non-charity organizations and pay for things (e.g. the projector rental of the YEG Bike Coalition). The difference is that whatever we spend our money on has to be related to our charitable objects, and if that spending is political, it comes out of our 10%. | ||
**Jon: Record keeping. There will be more, but our bookkeeper doesnt think this will be a problem. This would enhance our record keeping. | **Jon: Record keeping. There will be more, but our bookkeeper doesnt think this will be a problem. This would enhance our record keeping. | ||
**Jon: CRA recommends that charities have their financials reviewed by an auditor which will cost at least $4k and must be done annually. | **Jon: CRA recommends that charities have their financials reviewed by an auditor which will cost at least $4k and must be done annually. | ||
| Line 225: | Line 225: | ||
* Have keys for shops for board members. Come see me! | * Have keys for shops for board members. Come see me! | ||
== <i>In Camera</i> Session ( | == <i>In Camera</i> Session (10 min)== | ||
* <span style="background: yellow;">Motion:</span> To go <i>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera in camera]</i>. Moved by Geoff, seconded by Rachel. '''Motion Carried.''' | * <span style="background: yellow;">Motion:</span> To go <i>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_camera in camera]</i>. Moved by Geoff, seconded by Rachel. '''Motion Carried.''' | ||
* Please list how long you believe your topic will take to discuss: | * Please list how long you believe your topic will take to discuss: | ||