It would be nice, but with an all-new board of directors to create, I think we are going to struggle to find people who accept the leadership position. Damn.
1 Like
Indeed, I was thinking mostly about the board, as it seemed that it was the most urgent thing. So I’ve changed the name of this post, and we will need to create another one for the comité des sages, which we maybe put on the backlog just for a little bit? I feel that this can wait 2 or 3, let me know if you disagree. Can we already decide on who can take responsibility for this though, so that we don’t loose track?
I can take care of updating the document for the board selection
Following up on the discussion from the last plenary, we will have a lot of different roles to fill in at once: SoSim board, coordinator(s), secretary and treasurer (+ what else actually?), so we will need to come up with a process that takes all of this together as a whole to be able to distribute responsability well.
I don"t really see us doing all the roles at once and maybe a possible way to do this could be:
- we do all the nomination rounds and change rounds for each role, so we get an overview of where people could be
- for each we write down the list of people that were most nominated, keeping track of the order. We keep the names of as many people as we have positions.
- we hear from the nominated persons, and see whether that changes things a bit (as Alberto was saying, people might say “I’m doing this if you’re doing that”, or “I’m doing this if somebody else does it with me”, etc…), and whether we can get to an agreement
- somebody comes up with a final proposal and we do consent
It doesn’t really change the process at all, but I don’t really see how else to do it… Ideas?
As for the anonymity, I don’t see how we are going to do this if people don’t say who they want on each role? Are you saying we don’t do selection process but resort to a vote? Or do you mean that people send a name + reason to somebody from team governance and that person lists the names of the nominees and reasons cited? And we do that another time for the change round?
One thing that we might want to do is to think ahead whether it would be a good thing to have an overlap between the board and the other roles. For instance, I think it makes sense that the treasurer be on the board. It may be the same for the coordinator (although I’m not sure).
It’s a lot of things, so I’m gonna go a little telegraphic:
Comité des Sages:
Yes I think this can wait for a bit, but it would nevertheless be good to be prepared. This is a legal issue though, so I would leave this to Team Finance & Legal.
Selection process:
-
Roles for which I think we need a selection process:
- Group Coordinator and back-up
- Full Members meeting Coordinator (if this proposal is consented to)
- Secretary
- Accountant and back-up
-
How to run the selection process: all in all it’s not so different from a simple selection process, and I have an idea of how it could be facilitated. I can’t write it all up, but we would need a beamer and an Excel sheet, a UNO game (for coloured cards) and a piece of paper per person.
Board of the société simple:
-
In the first stage I would decouple this from everything else that we do. So I would do a simple selection process, where we look for 5 people that meet the qualification “who do you trust the most to not sign anything that could get us into serious trouble?”. We could set a short term for this - say 3 months? - to get us through the purchase phase.
-
As you say, at some point we’ll need a smart link with the Team Administration roles and probably also with the Coordination Group. This requires some thought, so I would keep that for our next meeting?
Board of the asbl:
For the asbl the question will be whether we can find a volunteer who is willing to go through the administrative process. If yes, let’s do a selection process
1 Like
Hello @reef-finance, @reef-governance and @ChrisM,
In light of the possible urgency that we are facing it seemed more efficient to me if I would just sit down and put forward a first proposal, mostly based on how I understand the statutes.
The first draft is now saved in the 2024 proposals folder in Team Reef. This is the internal link: https://c301.nl.tabdigital.eu/f/136833
Would somebody be willing and able to pick up this draft and take it to the finish? As long as we get to a proposal to the plenary, please feel welcome to ignore my entire draft or to change anything that you see fit.
The key element that is missing is the part on liability of the Board members, which is something that @els and @Sarah are working on in the context of the insurance that we may be buying. Would it be possible for you to add a short section that clarifies the key notions of the Board members’ liability?
2 Likes
Thanks for this @Lee ! I’ve read the proposal, and it looks clear and well-thought out to me 
There is just one point in Section 7 that I’m not clear on with regard to facilitating the process :
- Given the significant responsibility that the Board members will be taking up, we could then do a third round in which the people who were selected by many people get to express 1) whether they would consent to being on the Board, and 2) whether they have any preferences or objections about who else will be on the Board.
In a possible scenario where someone objects on the grounds of 1) or 2), do we go back to the beginning of the process? Or do we select our list of 5 people with a number 6 and 7 in mind? I can’t find anything in my sociocracy resources that clarifies this…
Hi @reef-full members !
Below is a link to the form where you can indicate your five choices for who should be on the initial board of the société simple. Please read Lie’s proposal (above), in particular Sections 1 (role description), 2 (qualifications) and 3 (process). Having done that, fill in the form, ideally well before tomorrow’s plenary…
3 Likes
I added a chapter on the liability of the members of the Board, but i must admit I don’t feel absolutely comfortable doing that (and translating it to English). So i would be gratefull if sb could have a look at it.
As the insurance companies didn’t yet answer me, i am planning to phone a couple of them tomorrow (Sarah will be contacting Ethias with whom we have our insurance for the asbl) with the goal to make an appointment for next wednesday (hopefully). So I hope i will have a firmer view on things after that as well.
3 Likes
Hello @reef-governance, I read the proposal, great work! I have one question though. One round of “explaining our rationale for choosing the people that we choose” is going to be quite long. If everyone is there, we will have 16 people each going over 5 people, which means 80 explanations. That’s a long round, and a lot to keep in mind, and we might need to do more than one. What are your thoughts around this issue?
1 Like
Assuming there are about 7-8 candidates, there will be a first round on each. One person will explain (fairly briefly) why they nominated candidate A, and then everyone else who also nominated candidate A will be able to add something. It’s realistic (I hope) to expect that most people won’t have much to add to the first 2-3 speakers in each round (this will be explicitly encouraged), so it should go fairly quickly. There’ll also be the possibility that there are objections. The same process applies to the second round when people can change their vote, but there will be a much smaller proportion of people who do so, and as with the first round, people speaking later will be encouraged to say that they agree with what has already been said if they don’t have anything new to add. It could potentially go quite smoothly… potentially 
4 Likes
one question: all the documents (contracts,…): how does it work uptill now (for the asbl,…): they are all in french? or you have them in dutch/french or french/english.
My assumption is that they are in french, in that case i would argue to have - if possible- at least one native french speaker on the Board. (or solve this issue some other way)
(added the comment in the doc)
Good point. It’s in the list of qualifications, last bullet point.
thanks, comment removed…
I have a side question regarding the powers of the board: what is the rationale between having the board deciding on accepting and excluding members, and not the General Assembly? I’m sorry, I know this should have been asked before but I need to understand because it’s not obvious to me.
1 Like
We should ask the notary, but from what I can see on the internet this seems like something that you can freely choose, and possibly something that we indeed should have changed. The website I found suggests to submit this for the approval of the GA. See e.g. Can a Partner be Expelled from a Partnership? - Helix Law
In the asbl in Article 9 §1b, it says the decision is taken with a 66% majority by the GA.
2 Likes
Hello Sarah, according to article 9.1, the admission of a new associés is a responsibility of the general assembly, whereas the exclusion is in the hands of the executive board and/or the comités de sages (see 9.7/9.8/9.9) “due to a serious disagreement and/or a sufficiently serious fault to undermine the trust of the Executive Board.”
2 Likes
Correct. So IMHO that begs the questions why so much power will be invested in 3 individuals, without any input from the GA. There is probably a good reason for that, but I will feel more comfortable if I understand it better.
1 Like
I checked in the statutes of Brutopia and De Spiegel (internal link). In both groups it’s point 4.3, where it says that it’s a decision by the GA with a 66% majority, excluding the household that is subject to the vote.
@reef-finance could you please look into how we can include an amentment to the statutes along the same lines?
isn’t this a question to the notary?
It’s certainly something that we’ll need to discuss with a notary or a lawyer, but for now it’s nevertheless important to understand the essence of it, because we need to what we’ll be telling the people who will be coming in.
Sophie has taken care of a machine translation. I am planning to make a post on the “Mark-model” (the specifics in the Spiegel statutes), but not before the end of the weekend.