Problems with the board

[_Jersey Girl]

Icarus can take over the running and moderating of non-Mormon discussion fora here.

Please explain what you mean by that.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think those are good points, Kish. The Board’s authority is set out in the articles of formation. But the Board can delegate anything, including setting rules for the Board.

Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time, and set up systems to make it hard for anyone with access to money to embezzle.

I am trying to relate this to my own experiences wherein I would be Shades in this scenario.

Would it be a good idea if the member of the BOD were those who made no monetary contribution at all? Let's say they have 1-2 year term limits with alternates standing by. What I am asking is if the members of the BOD could be relieved of monetary contribution during their tenure on the board and should an alternate need to replace a board member, they too, would be relieved of monetary contributions for next collection of "dues"?

The reason I am asking is because I think that would eliminate any concern over monetary contributions/board influence in the minds of the community since the term served by the board members would serve as their contribution for the 1-2 years.

Wait. (Thinking in real time here, this could get scary.) If we, as a community, were able to collect "dues" for two years time. In that way, at any given point in time, we'd have financial coverage for the upcoming year. A non-profit can maintain financial holdings so long as those monies are targeted toward a goal--licensing, registration, maintenance. That sort of thing.

I'm visualizing an organizational chart where the top is the Board Chair, under that 3 persons--Tech advisor, Legal advisor, General advisor, and underneath those, their alternates. And then, Shades and his Mod Team if the Mod Team even needs to be listed.

That said, I would not want to see a complicated organizational structure.

Back to "dues". If someone could forecast the amount of annual dues needed that would be helpful. Knowing that in the beginning we'd need to supply monies upfront in order to get a new board up and running. Following that, I assume (perhaps ignorantly so) that "dues" would level off into an ongoing cycle of stabilized collections until expenses increase, and I think they likely will over time. For those who donate beyond the amount needed, those monies would also be held in reserve for maintenance and unforeseen expenses.

I have never set up a board. I don't know if I'm speaking out of turn or ignorance here. These ideas/suggestions are just how I visualize the set up. I am sure I am overlooking something here.

I'll return later to see what has taken place.

[_Kishkumen]

I think those are good points, Kish. The Board’s authority is set out in the articles of formation. But the Board can delegate anything, including setting rules for the Board.

Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time, and set up systems to make it hard for anyone with access to money to embezzle.

I don't see the problem with requiring up front donations to serve on the BOD. The central purpose of the thing is funding MDB to make sure it is kept in good working order and preserved. The donations wouldn't have to be big, but those who are interested in keeping MDB functional should at minimum be willing to contribute a certain amount toward that end. That way expectations of further donations from others would be kept realistic.

After all, if we were to have a single person buy the board--as is now in the works--that person would be on the hook to pay for the board's upkeep, no?

As for the rest of it, I agree that it is crucial that paperwork be filed on time, that systems be put in place to insure the safety of donations, etc.

[_Jersey Girl]

Good Lord, just look at what she's done in just a few days of gossiping behind the scenes.

Every statement and/or assertion I have made concerning you on this thread was made in reference to your easily and well documented conduct on this board and my observation of it. Do not delude yourself with ideas about my recruiting a "girlfriend" from behind the scenes to post on this thread.

Didn't happen.

[_Kishkumen]

Icarus can take over the running and moderating of non-Mormon discussion fora here.

Please explain what you mean by that.

I am just spit-balling here. I hardly ever visit Spirit Paradise. My understanding is that Icarus spends most of his time here, and Icarus is interested in keeping MDB alive partly for that reason (although not only for that reason). If Icarus was willing to show up and put up money, then I would hardly write him out of the future of the board. In any case, an offer remains on the table, and, if I am reading everything correctly, Icarus is the one who made it.

We will see what happens. I am not going to jump the gun, but I would still like to express my interest in how the future of the board is secured, one way or another.

[_Lemmie]

Icarus can take over the running and moderating of non-Mormon discussion fora here.

Please explain what you mean by that.

I am just spit-balling here. I hardly ever visit Spirit Paradise. My understanding is that Icarus spends most of his time here, and Icarus is interested in keeping MormonDiscussions.com alive partly for that reason (although not only for that reason). If Icarus was willing to show up and put up money, then I would hardly write him out of the future of the board. In any case, an offer remains on the table, and, if I am reading everything correctly, Icarus is the one who made it.

We will see what happens. I am not going to jump the gun, but I would still like to express my interest in how the future of the board is secured, one way or another.

I was planning to let this go, but since Icarus has again been suggested as being involved with the administration of the board, it’s worth mentioning:

As soon as you admit you're a wife beater.

You do realize the question, "how long have you been beating your wife?" is a common rhetorical device used to point out someone else's faulty reasoning, right?

Guess not.

Move along there, small fry.

https://wikieducator.org/PHI-130:_Criti ... Answer_Key

Icarus went to considerable effort here to disguise his comment by pretending he was just using a stock phrase, but his own previous posts tell a very different story. Regarding the same poster he referred to originally:

. ...The difference between us, aside from me not being a wife beater...

And

I don't care who a poster is, where they live, what they do or what they have done in their in real life (unless they choose to share it for some reason of their own).

Well not everyone is this ____ stupid. If you're talking to a convicted felon with a history of violence towards women or children, you should want to know that. But I've never divulged that kind of information about anyone, just hinting to them that I very well could if they don't back the ____ off.

And a little vague, but still obvious:

You and [ .. ] should go get a room. Just be sure to wear a helmet.

And vague but in context obvious, bringing the count to at least 5:

It would take much more than having a crush on a wife beater to prove you're tough, Jersey Girl.

And finally:

If you'd pay the ____ attention, I told you I did report it. I got no response. I wanted their remarks removed immediately, and so I took matters into my own hands to see that done. You're damned ____ right I did. If I don't get results in a timely manner, I'll take care of it myself.

That’s not someone who should administer a discussion board. The ones he is outing, hinting about, etc. aren’t either, but he’s the one being discussed as owning the board.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think those are good points, Kish. The Board’s authority is set out in the articles of formation. But the Board can delegate anything, including setting rules for the Board.

Also, membership on the Board does not require (in my opinion should not require) monetary contribution. It requires people who will read the articles, do what they require, make sure any required reports are filed on time, and set up systems to make it hard for anyone with access to money to embezzle.

I don't see the problem with requiring up front donations to serve on the BOD. The central purpose of the thing is funding MormonDiscussions.com to make sure it is kept in good working order and preserved. The donations wouldn't have to be big, but those who are interested in keeping MormonDiscussions.com functional should at minimum be willing to contribute a certain amount toward that end. That way expectations of further donations from others would be kept realistic.

After all, if we were to have a single person buy the board--as is now in the works--that person would be on the hook to pay for the board's upkeep, no?

As for the rest of it, I agree that it is crucial that paperwork be filed on time, that systems be put in place to insure the safety of donations, etc.

The only thing I was thinking, Kish, is that having a financial donation as a requirement may shut out some people who would make very good directors. You're right that whoever's name is on the hosting account is financially responsible to the hosting company for paying fees. That doesn't mean the rest of us couldn't pitch in to help with the costs. If it's a non-profit, the organization is liable, not the board (assuming the Board has performed the necessary duties). The non-profit would raise funds, which would be used to pay the costs of running the board.

Right now we're talking about two sets of costs: the one-time cost (if any) of obtaining the rights from Mav and the ongoing costs of board hosting. We don't know what the first might be, and won't until Mav responds to Shades. The second I think we could estimate through a little googling.

[_Res Ipsa]

Lemmie, the original introduction of the "wife beater" claim was much more direct and clear. I think it was taken down pretty quickly. Why Icarus thinks continuing to refer to it is okay mystifies me.

[_Lemmie]

If it's a non-profit, the organization is liable, not the board (assuming the Board has performed the necessary duties).

Yes. It would have to be researched for its applicability here, but Boards I’ve served on have typically had some type of trustee’s insurance in place to remove any liability.

[_Res Ipsa]

If it's a non-profit, the organization is liable, not the board (assuming the Board has performed the necessary duties).

Yes. It would have to be researched for its applicability here, but Boards I’ve served on have typically had some type of trustee’s insurance in place to remove any liability.

Yes, many non-profits have some flavor of Directors & Officers Insurance to protect them and the organizsation from claims short of malicious acts. I'm not sure the legal exposure would be worth the premium for the limited purpose of the non-profit we're talking about. If we get down the road and the eventual board wants to look into it, I know a few brokers and could get some quotes.