Hello All,
I’ve reread several times the report from the EC concerning
what to do with the position of Vice Director.
A very interesting analysis and a very interesting conclusion indeed. I’m in the process of preparing a commentary
on it; at the moment I’m waiting for a copy of the materials from the CT attorneys,
Day, Pitney. Jay, Chris, or Tom G. – can you forward these
to me as soon as you can?
While
I wait for these materials, I do have an initial question for the EC. The following strike me as the major points
of the proposal; consideration of each of these items in detail will be the
purpose and form of the exposition that I hope to prepare over the weekend:
1. Removing
the entitlement for Vice Directors to automatically succeed Directors
2. Removing
the entitlement for Vice Directors to vote in place of Directors who are
temporarily absent
3. Move
Vice Director focus from League level to Divisional
4. No
attendance at board meetings
5. Vice
Directors to be appointed, not elected
6. Vice
Directors would be under direction of the Directors
7. Vice
Directors have ”preference” in selection to replace a Director
Now, suppose instead, that the Vice Director position were
eliminated entirely, and each Director were to appoint one additional Assistant
Director.
The question:
What significant,
substantive difference is there between these two options?
If you feel the need, comment on the insignificant and
trivial differences as well – I suggest that last item in the list above falls
into this category.
Jay, Chris, and Tom G. (and the rest of the EC, if you
choose), could you please post your answers?
Thanks,
Mike
K1TWF