Size and Election of National Board: Proposal Two

THESE PROPOSALS ARE TO DISCUSS CONCEPTS ONLY.  ACTUAL LANGUAGE WILL BE DRAFTED AT A LATER TIME.

Watch the webinar recording for Number of National Officers and Size & Election of National Board.  

We encourage you to use the PowerPoint presented at the webinar and the Structure Modernization Discussion Guide to help facilitate conversations in your networks.  


 Two Board Structure Consisting of Policy Board & Governing Board:

  • Policy Board consists of 1 representative from each state
    • Elected at a state conference OR at National Conference, per state preference
    • Policy Board should be at least 40% people of color (reflects U.S. population)
    • Meets face-to-face 2/year to discuss policy / action agenda for the organization. Meets virtually as often as needed.
  • Governing Board of max. 9 members is elected by Policy Board from its members
    • At least 4 should be people of color.
    • Serves as governing body for NOW re: fiduciary and compliance
    • Meets up to 4 times a year
    • How do we incorporate affirmative action policy? Quota?

Posting Instructions

1. If you want to share your thoughts on a proposal (remember these are just concepts, the actual language will be developed later), write your reply in the text box below the words Leave Reply, and in the box “Enter your comment here…”

 

2. If you want to respond to a comment that another NOW member has left regarding a proposal, click the small blue link that says “Reply” underneath said comment. It is very important that you click this reply button and not start another comment so that the conversation is easily followed and clear!

3. You MUST put your full name and chapter affiliation before every comment you leave. If a comment does not have a name and chapter affiliation it will not be approved. This is to ensure that only NOW members are commenting.

4. Remember be respectful and friendly! All NOW members want to work to improve the organization and it takes collaboration and patience on our part as a grassroots organization to make sure that all of our members voices are heard – even those with whom we may disagree with.

5. Be creative and don’t be afraid to say what you think! It is vital that you share your opinions — in order to create the best proposals possible we need to know what all of the members think! This site is for YOU to have your voices heard.

5 thoughts on “Size and Election of National Board: Proposal Two

  1. This doesn’t work for me at all. Essentially, you would have a Senate which would elect a smaller House. And how do you propose to insure that 40% of the members are people of color?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Theresa Bergen, Rokland NOW NY
    The policy making unit of NOW is the National Conference which is what makes us a grassroots organization. I don’t want any system which weakens that basic structure. And I certainly don’t want a board to elect a board. The further you remove the representative from the electorate the more middle of the road the board. The distance from the electorate causes the extremes at the right and the left to be pushed out. As a radical organization we need those people in our governance. I am using the word radical in its pure sense of root. We are not interested in simple incremental change but instead we are the people who see the root cause of the problem and want solutions that effect that root. That takes radicals.

    Like

  3. LIS HARPER, member of HOUSTON AREA NOW (TX0190) and PAC COMMITTEE MEMBER:
    This is my favorite idea for Board restructuring. I think the problem statement with current board structure is that the membership is not represented equally and evenly, and the large size plus large turnover makes it difficult for the board to function as well as it could. I like this idea because it calls for a governing board that should be responsible for fundraising while the policy board represents all states and all members and helps lead issue discussion. I would add in that the terms should be 4 years and rotating in a staggered way so that we’re not electing the whole board every 2 years. That plus separating issue focus from governance would really allow each board to focus intently on the work they needed to do. I think this idea is a great solution for the struggles we have with current structure in terms of the board.

    Like

    • MARIAN BRADLEY, Montana NOW an NW REGIONAL DIRECTOR

      Liz, I agree with you. This could also then make it easier not to have a change in regions. If each state had one vote on a policy board, we would have equality on the policy board. This board could meet virtually and possibly at conference each year (or alternating years). The governing board could be made up of the Regional Directors from each region and could and should meet a little more often, but most of the work could be done virtually. The governing board could work very closely with the NAC to take some of the burden off the officers and staff.

      I also am in favor of four year terms. Having four years makes individuals able to work through action plans and really focus.

      My region and me personally have been opponents of region restructure, but this might be a good compromise.

      Like

  4. Unless NOW increases their membership numbers (More money) having 1 Policy rep. from each state meet twice a year and Governing Board (9 members) 4 times a years (the travel cost alone will bankrupt NOW unless we double or triple out membership numbers.

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.