<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>
Careful study of the above shows that the President bears the greatest burden for appointments, and thus for ensuring that the Society works as intended—or indeed works at all. Weakness in the presidency is dangerous, as the only alternative is for the Board to rise up and remove him from office. Even when this is obviously needed, it remains a difficult act that may have lasting personal repercussions.
Experience also shows that the mood of the Board itself is also critical, as a generally unwillingness of the Board to address crucial issues creates a leadership vacuum, into which any number of individuals might insert themselves, for better or worse. Directors are well advised to remember that they are personally and severally liable for both the actions of the Board and its inactions, save only when their actions (or inactions) pass the "reasonable man" test. Thus a lazy Board may find that laziness could become quite expensive!
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 Januaryeach 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]] amendment voted by the membership, or by a 4/5 vote of the Board to change the number of [[Directors]].
'''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.
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 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.