The current board configuration is effectively two distinct entities -- a subcommittee focused on leading CONvergence, and a subcommittee focused on leading the year around activities of MISFITS.
And while each subcommittee is about the right size to manage their particular area of responsibility, the entire board of directors of MISFITS and CONvergence is way, way, way too big.
And they aren't balanced either -- there are seven CONvergence directors and five MISFITS directors. So you've got a bit of factionalism that is absolutely inevitable by the organizational setup. And it became more obvious when you had turnover in directors, but you had the same sort of negative situations playing out.
And then you also have set up the conditions where you inevitably trip over each other. Things get confused and blame gets shifted around in unproductive ways.
So this gives both organizations to focus on their specific missions independently, with each organization capable of having a manageable board of directors with hands-on involvement on the major focus areas of the separate organizations.
And as both CVG and MISFITS grow and mature, it is difficult to manage "the whole thing", but we want to make sure each half has the independence and hands-on involvement to be successful.
We haven't worked out the implementation details yet -- as a board we committed to do that by 1/1/2010. There is a 30 day delay before we can make any bylaws changes, and obviously there are a lot of details to work out over the next several months, including the work of setting up an additional 501(c)3.
One thing that I'm really excited about is that we're going to a Non Profit Board training session on Monday so we can start to build the skills necessary to set up these organizations to be even more successful in the future.
Yes -- we used MAP for Non-Profits for board training, and it was fantastic and perfectly well timed. I would certainly recommend it for future board members in our organizations & other non-profit organizations.
Obviously part of the motivation is that a smaller board is more nimble making decisions -- and that's especially important for active boards like we have in SF and similar style organizations.
I'm actually very excited by the depth of potential leaders -- we had a full class of 21 people with representation from several organizations, and I think having a bigger "bench" of skills in this area will serve all of us really, really, well in the future.
The current board configuration is effectively two distinct entities -- a subcommittee focused on leading CONvergence, and a subcommittee focused on leading the year around activities of MISFITS.
And while each subcommittee is about the right size to manage their particular area of responsibility, the entire board of directors of MISFITS and CONvergence is way, way, way too big.
And they aren't balanced either -- there are seven CONvergence directors and five MISFITS directors. So you've got a bit of factionalism that is absolutely inevitable by the organizational setup. And it became more obvious when you had turnover in directors, but you had the same sort of negative situations playing out.
And then you also have set up the conditions where you inevitably trip over each other. Things get confused and blame gets shifted around in unproductive ways.
So this gives both organizations to focus on their specific missions independently, with each organization capable of having a manageable board of directors with hands-on involvement on the major focus areas of the separate organizations.
And as both CVG and MISFITS grow and mature, it is difficult to manage "the whole thing", but we want to make sure each half has the independence and hands-on involvement to be successful.
We haven't worked out the implementation details yet -- as a board we committed to do that by 1/1/2010. There is a 30 day delay before we can make any bylaws changes, and obviously there are a lot of details to work out over the next several months, including the work of setting up an additional 501(c)3.
One thing that I'm really excited about is that we're going to a Non Profit Board training session on Monday so we can start to build the skills necessary to set up these organizations to be even more successful in the future.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Obviously part of the motivation is that a smaller board is more nimble making decisions -- and that's especially important for active boards like we have in SF and similar style organizations.
I'm actually very excited by the depth of potential leaders -- we had a full class of 21 people with representation from several organizations, and I think having a bigger "bench" of skills in this area will serve all of us really, really, well in the future.
Reply
Leave a comment