[Talk-GB] OSMUK AoA Directors Powers
jez.nicholson at gmail.com
Thu Apr 21 21:49:04 UTC 2016
I had never considered that a pony may be in the offing...
And the web site example is good. There needs to be a balance between
getting things done by paying a reasonable amount and Directors going crazy
with the cash. Checks and balances.
How do we choose between the options?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 20:00 SK53, <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> A small document setting out a range of options for the Directors
> Authority clause.
> Directors Powers Options
> The basic boilerplate text of the Articles of Association provides that
> Directors can exercise all the powers of the Company. In initial
> discussions there was a strong consensus that OSM UK should be member led:
> broadly that most or all iniatives should orginate with the membership,
> with the Directors doing necessary work to facilitate such things.
> To take a simple example: I would presume OSMUK would want a website.
> Agreeing that a website is wanted & needed, then the Directors would need
> to have powers to agree a contract & pay the fees, which in turn implies a
> bank account etc. Allowing Directors full powers may mean that OSM UK
> follows the interests & desires of the Directors rather than those of the
> Members. In Rob Nickerson's original survey they were a range of things
> suggested and different levels of approval for them.
> The problem of restricting Directors' powers is that it is not always
> clear what powers they may need to perform various tasks.
> We can split powers into a number of different categories:
> Basic powers needed to run the company as a going concern: ability to
> have a bank account, pay bills etc.
> Entering into contracts. Necessary for many routine activities of a
> company, but others may not be routine.
> Initiating projects.
> So far I have conceived of a number of different ways we can express this
> in the AoA:
> *Full powers*. Standard boilerplate text. Easy to do. Downside is that
> removing powers may require alterations to AoA, and furthermore restricting
> Directors' powers is quite likely to end up being contentious. Any such
> process will appear to be a group of members not trusting the Directors.
> *No powers*. Powers need to be conferred explicitly by the Members.
> This is the current draft. Downside is that it is likely to limit Directors
> far too much. Such limitation is likely to be particularly troublesome at
> the outset.
> *No powers except those needed for Directors to fulfill legal &
> fiduciary duties*. Basically an additional clause added to current
> draft. This is an attempt to allow Directors to do necessary things but not
> unnecessary ones. Likely to readily twisted for any purpose.
> *Full powers limited for a term*. As current draft but Directors given
> full powers until the first AGM. Directors would be expected to propose
> which powers they need at the first AGM.
> *Full powers, renewable at the AGM*. Again slightly limiting powers &
> putting onus on Directors to use them responsibly. Downside is that if
> powers are not renewed then back in same problem area of 2.
> *Powers need to fulfill obligations & resolution of the members*. A
> variant of 3, but phrased so that if the Membership votes for everyone to
> have a pony; Directors are implicitly granted such powers as needed to
> acquire & distribute said ponies.
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB