For the record I have been contemplating this thread quite a bit. I now feel as follows:
Definitely there should be 2 separate motions.
As for Secretary: When I thought it was only someone who took meeting minutes, I didn't see any reason for it not to be staff-elected. Now that I comprehend the magnitude of potential fiduciary responsibility, and the minimal amount of interaction with non-Board portions of the convention, I do not see a need for this to be a staff-elected position, and unless some minimum professional standard were set in terms of credentials, I could forsee potential problems if someone gets elected who is popular, or persuasive, or simply has name recognition on the forums, but who is not actually qualified. The Board needs to be able to trust that Secretary, and Treasurer, are people with superlative (a) professional competence in the requisite capacities and (b) already-demonstrated integrity. I will be voting no on making Secretary staff-elected.
As for Vice Chair--If it were only a position that was a personal assistant to the Chair, I would want the Chair to appoint it, and the Board to only veto if there were evidence the selected person were not qualified in terms of competence or in terms of integrity. But given that I'm hearing that many separate levels of work are entrusted to the position beyond simply being a backup for the Chair, I can see some validity in having this be a staff-elected position.
That is to say, in the absence of a job description, I can't really say whether I feel it will be helpful or a hindrance to have VC be staff-elected. If it's truly an entirely separate position, and a well-defined one, then I could certainly be open to a staff vote on it, but I do not feel attachment to making that be the case.
However, I personally now believe that for this position to be voted upon with any degree whatsoever of meaning:
(1) Those who are presently listed as recommended in the board-elected thread (for vice and secretary) should identify whether or not they are interested in the position.
(2) Forum threads should be present for those two categories, identifying their job descriptions, and allowing candidates to introduce themselves and to be asked questions about what they think their roles would be and how they'd envision fulfilling them, etc.
(3) If there are not presently minimum requirements for each position, the present board should define some for consideration prior to any potential staff vote.
(4) If the Vice Chair becomes a staff-elected position, and the staff-elected VC & Chair do not see eye to eye or do not get along, an outside moderator should be brought in to facilitate dialogue, and this should be done privately in executive session, without involvement of non-board staff.
I've had both positive and negative experiences at all points along the spectra, from rigid hierarchies to radical anarchist collectives to cooperatively owned businesses. The short version is: There is no direct link between the number of people involved in making a decision and the likelihood that it will be the one most beneficial for the whole, most efficient, most trustworthy, etc. But imho there may be a direct link between how hard it is to get anything done, and how appreciated vs. distrusted anyone feels while they try to work for the good of the whole, and the likelihood that they stick around to do it, and enjoy doing it, and feel respected while doing it.
I really enjoy, respect, feel respected by, trust, and feel trusted by, KC as it is. While there may be some benefit, within the board, to looking at which job descriptions fit under which departments, etc., that's something for the board to decide. I currently would rather just steer clear of anything that disrupts that natural flow and joy and growth the con is experiencing. Some modicum of formality and professionalizing of positions is natural with that level of exponential growth. I'm personally comfortable not having to be in the loop about all of it. Perhaps there could be a Board Liason to Staff position, or a Staff Liason to the Board position--sort of like how the City of Eugene has a Chief Information Officer (though don't get me started on how often he used to lie)......
With just under a month to go til elections, I have no idea how much momentum this proposed measure or pair of measures actually has, and I'm not even entirely sure of all the motivations behind it, but I do know that having faith in the Board is helpful, and electing to the Board people in whom we have faith is helpful.
Brainstorming about long-term strategic planning can be a healthy process when it is genuinely undertaken with the good of the whole as the priority, and without factionalizing. Sometimes the best way to move forward in certain circumstances is to find individuals experienced in the fiduciary, legal, pragmatic, and/or mediating aspects of long-term strategic planning processes, who are not looking to become stakeholders, and who can be trusted to uphold confidentiality, who can avail themselves on an as-needed basis for consulting purposes.
[Last paragraph is new today. Preceding paragraphs include substantial revisions.]
