Talk:WikiConference UK 2013/Resolutions

Re: A motion to amend the Articles to introduce 3-terms limits for Trustees

The proposed text is "No person shall be appointed as a Director if they have, since 1 June 2013, been elected or appointed three times to the Board (except to fill a casual vacancy under Article 17.5), unless before the date of their appointment at least two years have passed since the date of their last departure from the Board". I don't think this has been discussed in any detail elsewhere, and a couple of things strike me that are worth going over:

1. This appears to only start the clock running from 1st June, so this might not make any difference for 6 years, which would seem a bit pointless. Is this the intention, or is the count of 3 times appointed actually meant to be retrospective?
2. There is ambiguity over term limits in the phrasing. We have had some trustees serving for 1 year before re-election needed rather than 2 years. My understanding of the governance review recommendations was to adopt a standard 2x3 model, intended to be a maximum of 3 terms of 2 years. Consequently we should probably avoid restricting anyone with less than a maximum of 6 years service on the board from standing again.
3. The "at least two years have passed" surprises me, I would have thought one year would be sufficient before a potential trustee was allowed to run for election again.
4. My assumption is that this limit applies for elected and co-opted trustees equally. It may be worth making that clear, in that both terms as co-opted or elected will count in the 6 year (or 3 term) total.
5. The phrasing "last departure from the Board" is ambiguous, we can potentially have roles on the board that are not directors or trustees, such as non-voting observers, honorary advisers/consultants or associates. I suggest this is amended to "last departure as a director on the Board".

--Fæ (talk) 10:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fae, thanks for looking at this. A number of these points could be approached in several different ways.

1. Yes, my intention was to start the clock running from this summer, so it doesn't apply retrospectively. Since it's a long-term safeguard I don't think it's a problem to have it only taking effect after 6 years. Another logical place to start would be at last year's AGM, where we brought in two-year terms, giving it effect in 2018. Alternatively, we could go back to incorporation in 2008.
2. That is a very good point - it would be possible in some circumstances for someone to have been elected for three one-year terms. Perhaps "6 years or being appointed three times, whichever is the longer" would work.
3. My thought here was that the period ought to be one Board term, but it could be shorter (or longer).
4. Your last two points - yes, definitely, will incorporate in the next draft.

Regards, The Land (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I would go for a minimum of at least one year off (not one term - ie two years) before the individual can stand to become a trustee again. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One year I think makes sense :) Seddon (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

For info, it's not yet clear whether the board will actually be putting this resolution forward to the AGM. At the first meeting of the governance committee, we were more inclined to wait and instead propose a move to three-year terms to a future AGM first. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)