At present, the The administrative structure of the Society has not been clearly defined, prior to this wiki, which is in the process of being normalized by efforts of [[Consuls]]an attempt to do so. These efforts are The effort does not seem to be widely understood and are is therefore often somewhat unappreciated and unsupported. They [[Consuls]] hope this Vision will articulate their aims more effectively.
# <ul><li>The members in [[Good Standing]] elect the members of the [[Board|Board of Directors]]</li># <li>The Board of Directors elects from its number the senior [[Elected Officers|Officers]], and from the membership the minor officers.</li># <li>The Board may enter into contracts with the Consuls and others for facilities and services.</li># <li>The [[President]] names the [[Committee Chairmen|Chairmen]] of all principal committees, whether of the Board or of the Membership, including [[Committee Chairmen|Deans]] of the [[Lineage Groups]], and the [[Dean of Studies]], and the [[Dean of Fellows]].</li># <li>Committee Chairmen name the members of their committees, a minority of whom may be non-members if certain conditions are met.</li># <li>Committee Chairmen name the Chairmen of any sub-committees assigned to them; the Dean of Studies names the [[Coordinators]] of [[Study Groups]].</li># <li>The [[Order of the Augustan Eagle]] is headed by the President, who names the officers from that group's membership, with Board confirmation.</li># <li>The [[Noble Company of the Rose]] is headed by the ''[[Magister Rosae]]'' (MR) who is elected from that groups group's members in Good Standing by those members, with Board confirmation, and the ''MR'' names the officers from that group's membership, also with Board confirmation.</li></ul>
As the number Careful study of members has remained stagnant since 2007the above shows that the President bears the greatest burden for appointments, it has become increasingly difficult to find candidates to stand and thus for Director. While it was not long ago ensuring that the size of Society works as intended — or indeed works at all. Weakness in the presidency is dangerous, as the only alternative is for the Board was reduced from fifteen to ninerise up and remove him from office. Even when this is obviously needed, it remains a difficult act that may soon be time to consider additional reductionshave lasting personal repercussions.
'''Proposal: The Society should consider linking Experience also shows that the number mood of [[Directors]] to the size Board itself is also critical, as a generally unwillingness of the membershipBoard to address crucial issues creates a leadership vacuum, with the into which any number of individuals might insert themselves, for better or worse. Directors set are well advised to remember that they are personally and severally liable for both the odd number approximately equal to one tenth actions of the number of regular Board and life members as of 1 Januaryits inactions, with save only when their actions (or inactions) pass the "reasonable man" test. Thus a minimum of five and a maximum of fifteen.'''lazy Board may find that laziness could become quite expensive!
This suggests that if the membership (presently in the 80s) drops to 70, that the size of the Board might be reduced to seven members. Conversely, should the membership increase to 110, then the size might be increased to eleven. In either case, some amendment of the staggered election cycle would be needed, and a neutral method for implementing the change will be needed.
---- As the number of members has remained stagnant since 2007, it has become increasingly difficult to find candidates to stand for Director. While it was not long ago that the size of the Board was reduced to seven, time and the size of the membership may show it constructive to make further adjustments. '''Proposal: The Society should consider linking the number of [[Directors]] to the size of the membership, with the number of Directors set to the odd number approximately equal to one tenth the number of regular and life members as of 1 January each year, with a minimum of five and a maximum of fifteen.''' This suggests that if the membership (presently in the 70s) drops to 50, that the size of the Board might be reduced to five members. Conversely, should the membership increase to 90, then the size might be increased to nine. In either case, some amendment of the staggered election cycle would be needed, and a neutral method for implementing the change will be needed, as has been done in the past. The change in size can be implemented either through a [[By-Laws]] amendmentvoted by the membership, or by a 4/5 vote of the Board to change the number of [[Directors]].
An interesting note comes from reviewing attendance. Attendance as a percentage of the Board generally increases as the number of Directors decreases. Even more interesting, the average attendance for a 15-member Board and a 9-member Board was the same: five. This suggests that increasing the number of Directors is unlikely to have much impact on the size of the working Board. It also suggests that vacancies on the Board are not a significant challenge, so long as a quorum can be obtained from the remaining Directors.
----
At one time in Society history, all Directors who were not elected officers were named Vice-Presidents in charge of one of the major activities of the Society (the five major categories of study, publications, facilities, etc.) If this is felt desirable, there are two ways to achieve this:
'''Proposal: The Society should consider how important it is that each department be represented on the [[Board]] by a dedicated [[Directors|Director]], and if this is felt important, then steps should be taken to ensure that this is the case, possibly by amending the [[By-Laws]] to provide that a Director shall head each Department.'''
Experience in other organizations teaches that the responsible Director and the Chairman must be the same individual. One organization that assigned a Director (who was not necessarily expert in the subject) to oversee the Chairmen (who were subject experts) quickly devolved into conflict between each pair, and the result was a flurry of resignations and subsequent stagnation of the various programs. The Society is admonished to avoid setting up such a formula for failure.
Before the By-Laws are so amended, it would be wise to make such assignments by Presidential appointment for a few years to confirm that the benefits outweigh the costs.
----
There exist a variety of ways for a non-profit to be managed:
The second of these is best when it's desired to have paid staff, but to keep expenses low. The keys to making this form work are excellent documentation of procedures (which this Wiki is an attempt to address) and gentle but attentive oversight.
The third of these — the present situation — is often inherently unstable, with responsibility and authority divided in uneasy ways even when carefully documented. It is normally unsustainable in the long term, if only because each party will perform only the duties they fell feel comfortable with, often leaving difficult or unpleasant — but essential tasks — tasks undone. '''Proposal: The Society should pursue conversion of the administration from the present "shared power" arrangement to having either a strong [[Board]] overseeing a largely clerical staff, or having a strong Executive Director and a token Board.''' This proposal isn't entirely optional, as the office of [[Consuls|Consul]] is discontinued at the end of 2017. Circumstances will fall to option 2, whether the Board is ready to take up the reigns or not.
'''Proposal: The Society should pursue conversion of the administration from the present "shared power" arrangement to having a strong [[Board]] overseeing a largely clerical staff.'''
----
:* [[Staff Vision|forward to Staff Vision]]:* [[Vision Proposals|forward to Vision Proposals]]* [[Centennial Vision|back to Centennial Vision]]* [[Planning|back to Planning]]* [[Administration|back to Administration]]* [[Main Page|back to Main Page]]