Anyone wish to agree or disagree with this stance? Just so I can see what the "majority" think.......(the majority of posters on here that is!)
Disagree. IMO it needs a few tweaks in how it interacts with its membership and how it makes decisions, nothing more. The entire membership should be given the opportunity to vote for board members and stand in opposition. If people don’t respond or stand then they can hardly complain can they. Any major decision should be endorsed by the membership. Who decides what is major, the membership. They will tell you, put what is on the agenda out there and set a response parameter that instigates a vote. If no one or insufficient people respond then again people can hardly complain. Do that then 2 things happen, firstly your democratic process is significantly enhanced and secondly all of this goes away, all of it. You may have to relinquish a little power and control over your decision making process, but which do you prefer? It’s either something along those lines or remain vulnerable to continued attack. I believe it’s also quite difficult to come up with a convincing reason why you wouldn’t embrace a process along those lines and then claim to be completely open and democratic.
