A different perspective: Statement from Friederike Keating ‘85
Friederike Keating, one of the moderators of the Reed (unofficial) Facebook group, explained her reasons for voting against the proposes amendments in one of the comment threads in that group (those who belong to the group can see it here) She has kindly consented to allow the following statement to be posted here. The group of opponents who sponsor this blog do not agree about all the following, but, in the event that the changes are voted down, we will all have to think about what comes next. As we see it, a multiplicity of viewpoints on that prospect is to be welcomed.
"I will vote against the proposal but for different reasons than those in your statement, and with a different vision. My vision is of a Board that is composed of reps from different areas of the alumni association and is streamlined so that it can make some strategic decisions after being advised by those reps, and then delegate the work back out to the contingents/committees/subgroups represented by those reps. It's like a sleeker, more efficient kind of Board.
"With that in mind:
I am in agreement with the idea of reduced representation of chapter leaders, because having all chapter leaders on the Board seems unwieldy.
I am in agreement with the idea of a chapter council that sends reps to the Board.
"However,
I think 3 is too few.
I think there should also be fewer At Large and Trustee members,
I think there should be equal terms and term limits for all
"My vision may not be workable for an organization that suffers from varying levels of enthusiasm and engagement and needs to use all the talent it can, and I am certainly not in a position to make any strong recommendations due to my lack of involvement (though I think of myself as having worked in one aspect of alumni relations quite diligently, that of social media/fb, and I think that may well deserve more attention in the alumni association's world)."
No comments:
Post a Comment