[mou] Vice-president resigns, part one of three

[Jim Williams]

Dear friends,

My vision of what the MOU could become by moving forward does not match the
desire of some other board members to stay firmly anchored where we are. I
therefore have resigned as vice president of the organization.

Perhaps I am impatient. I usually am. But, there is much work to be done fo=
r
birds and birders and bird conservation. And there are other places to do
it, places where change is not resisted and new ideas are welcome.

When I resigned earlier this week I had completed almost one year of the
usual two years a vice president would serve before advancing to president.
It had become apparent to me that my ideas for change in the way the MOU is
managed had insufficient support among other board members.

If I was to be president, I wanted to work in an atmosphere where new ideas
could find a home. To continue under the present circumstances would have
been frustrating for me and irritating for other board members.

The recent year-long efforts of the task force organized by Bob Holtz to
examine ways the MOU might better serve both birds and birders offered hope
for an atmosphere conducive to new ideas. However, the changes I felt most
significant and important failed to achieve the eight of 12 votes needed to
pass as recommendations sent to the MOU board. The board itself, given a
chance on Oct. 11 to take action of some of these recommendations, also
rejected those ideas.

And while yet another committee will be appointed by MOU President Jerry
Bonkoski to study the issue I find critical -- reorganization of the board
of directors -- there is little hope that the present board would accept an=
y
recommendation for change.

The MOU board of directors is made up of five elected officers, 13 committe=
e
chairpersons, two editors, and 11 representatives from affiliated bird
clubs. That makes 31 board members (with no limit on the top number should
more committees be formed or more bird clubs affiliate). A new vice
president comes to the board once every two years as the person holding tha=
t
position moves to the president=B9s chair. Thus, according to MOU bylaws, onl=
y
one new person need be added to the board every two years.

While the other officers also serve terms of office, the usual practice is
to re-elect the treasurer and the two secretaries if they will continue to
serve. People in those positions can serve indefinitely if they wish. The
board appoints the committee chairs and the editors. The board is
self-perpetuating. It can ensure, if it wishes, that change is a remote
possibility at best.

That is my first point of disagreement with a majority of the present board=
.
I feel all board members should be elected, and that 31 board members is to=
o
many by 20 at least. There should be routine mandated change of command.
Committee chairs should actually serve designated terms of office. One-year
terms presently are specified, but reappointment is, essentially, automatic=
.
Changes are not made unless someone resigns or dies. Editors should serve
designated terms of office, and that too would be new. Neither editors nor
committee chairpersons should be board members. They should instead be
subject to oversight by the board. The present bylaws specifically place
editors outside any oversight. They are responsible to no one but
themselves, not even the board.

continued in message part two