Originally Posted by Smokedelic
So if you're really looking for diversification and representation, how does excluding related persons from serving at the same time accomplish that, in your opinion? If you really want diversification and representation wouldn't mandating regional representation from all parts of the country be a better way to accomplish this?
Why have 2 or 3 board members from a particular state or region? Why not divide the membership base into 10 regions and elect one board member from each region, with an "at-large" board member....as an example?
The timing of this motion smacks of retaliation, and has nothing to do with diversification or representation. If having related persons serving on the board together were really an issue, KCBS wouldn't be where it is today.
If you can come up with a solution to represent all regions equally that will fly, I'd like to see it.
Two members of the BoD residing in the same home or closely related, doesn't advance that cause. Does it?
Where KCBS started, and where it is now are two different worlds. When it started it was a group of friends, and based on the attention and work of the founders it has grown into something larger.
At the time the last two motions similar to this were raised Merl was still eligible to run for a second consecutive term, and then it was raised again soon after. He's had six years in office at this point. At the time all of that was going on, I recall Carol stating that she didn't intend to run for an additional term.
I don't see this being aimed at them, but even if it is I think it's time to think beyond the immediate issue that you raise. KCBS has been served well in the past by couples that cared. There is no guarantee that will continue in the future. As KCBS continues to grow, I think it's prudent to make efforts to diversify the leadership to better serve the membership.