The Nuclear Option
To paraphrase Tolstoy, every dysfunctional nonprofit is dysfunctional in its own way.
Two emails in the past 24 hours have convinced me that the current President of the Fenway Garden Society, Tim Horn, is serious about putting off indefinitely the elections for the 2011 board. With very little notice he has decided he will not take nominations from the floor to fill the office of VP of the Park, clearly an option in the bylaws, and one he has had to resort to himself in the past.
_______________________________________
Postponing elections indefinitely
is not the answer.
_______________________________________
Postponing elections indefinitely
is not the answer.
_______________________________________
It is certainly possible this is a bluff, and he is hoping that I or my opponent for President, David St. Jean, will decide to switch the office for which we're running, so that all the offices would be filled going in. Tim alluded to this in his last email, saying: "I have enough people willing to work but will they bury the hatchet and work together?"
Under normal circumstances, I would say, yes. But the nature of St. Jean's campaign makes it not only difficult to picture us working together on the board, it raises questions with members and the public about the kind of organization we are and aspire to be.
And it's not just the midnight email rant that slimed a member of FGS and a partner organization with whom we have had a long-term relationship that generously lends us its facilities free of charge. There have also been abuses of member data for political purposes, and a brazen breach of privacy perpetrated by a board member entrusted with sensitive information. These are serious issues we need to take seriously as an organization if we want to be taken seriously as an organization.
I have told Tim that I appreciate his concerns about having a board that is capable of working together, and the importance of having a full slate going into the annual meeting. But the bylaws make it clear that
a) it is the nominating committee that is ultimately responsible for getting a slate of officers together, and
b) nominations can be taken from the floor.
While it would be preferable to have a full slate going in (again, the nominating committee's ultimate responsibility), if it doesn't happen, by default plan (b) should be the next choice.
Plan (c), putting off the elections indefinitely — and these are his exact words: "I still have no word on the parks position being filled. If I must I will send a re-scheduled date for the meeting TBD. Since I will have to procure a new meeting place I have no clue when that will be." — is the nuclear option.
If Tim is truly worried about handicapping the new board (and I take him at his word that he is), then keeping a new board from being elected with enough lead time to plan a successful coming year is the worst possible solution. Worse, by far, than going ahead with the planned elections and taking nominations from the floor at the regularly scheduled annual meeting.
Not only will this make it impossible to start work on next year's programming until an unknown date to be determined by the current board, it sows confusion and chaos in the ranks. Many people who feell it is important to vote may not show up to the new date due to typical lack of communication, miscommunications, and scheduling conflicts. This move would obviously disenfranchise a lot of people, without addressing the core issue — which is, presumably, electing a stable board.
We have procedures for this. It doesn't have to be a crisis. We can handle this.
Going nuclear is not the answer. Let's hope he pulls back from the brink.
Posted by Mike Mennonno at 11/24/2010 9:35 AM 
Categories: The Agenda, The Naked Gardener, A Day in the Life
Categories: The Agenda, The Naked Gardener, A Day in the Life
Good lord...you are so right.
CLEARLY, you should be running things. Hopefully the man currently in charge will read you post and realize that what he's doing isn't helping things at all.
(Happy Thanksgiving!!) :-)
Reply to this
Non-profits have an amazing potential to be hotbeds of controversy. Since they are not places of employment where transgressing boundaries carries greater weight, they seem to be fertile grounds for our dysfunctional behaviors to be in full force.
There is the unhappy child who has to create controversy because he can't express himself any other way and there is the family member who is so anxious about controversy that he will do whatever is necessary to keep the lid on the boiling pot. Sounds like you have elements of both.
I am sorry that what could be a gentlepersons' expression of different philosophies so quickly turned into ad hominem attacks. Where he could have explained his philosophy in the role of president he instead abused the mailing list to vent his spleen via personal attacks. Bad leadership.
My sense of your philosophy is I think pretty clear. To inspire and lead the organization to develop into a civic organization that is actively engaged with the larger city of which it is a part.
Perhaps that is what frightens the guy but he just does not know how to express himself. Maybe he wants the Victory Gardens to be an inwardly directed organization that is not involved with the larger community.
While the next business meeting could be challenging given the current tenor I think relying upon neutral procedures could allow the meeting to progress. If not all positions are filled perhaps the unfilled positions which are not essential could be filled in the coming year?
Whatever the case good luck. You seem like a guy who enjoys inspiring people and helping others to meet with success and growth in their lives. Those are the qualities that define the best leaders.
Reply to this
It seems that David has more problems that are not noticed by the other Gardeners. His drinking in his Garden as well as smoking pot in the past. I and others have seen him stumbling out onto the sidewalk on Park Drive many a day... He seems also to think he is in charge of the whole entire Park not just a Gardener and Board Member, he will alienate the Neighbors as well as other visitors to the Gardens, the taxpayers who pay their taxes for this park and others in the city. Please also stop him running off to the reeds everytime he has to relieve himself after having too many beers. He is also reinventing the Charters as he makes quotes that are false. It seems to be him who wants to cut down many of the trees and shrubs not the Parks Department.
So you are the best Candidate and I would also question holding off the meeting as it may be against something in the Charter... The Parks Department should be notified of these decisions...
Reply to this
David St. Jean has impressed me as incompetent in several ways. He never responded to my original garden application even though I handed it to him personally at a board meeting. He has always had an unpleasant personal manner when I've seen or spoken to him, to wit: he is a grump. And recently when my neighbors garden was broken into we were told David would be responsible for fixing the fence. No sign of him there either. Based on these few observations I am not inclined to vote for him as anything.
Reply to this