On Thu, 16 Oct 1997 10:05:09 -0700, you wrote:

>Hi...We are in the process of redoing our bylaws (we've attended
>seminars and contacted lawyers) and are contemplating a switch from a
>membership that votes for our trustees and bylaws to one that is
>non-voting. A vote in favor of non-voting is the idea that it will be
>easier to create a more professional, fundraising type of board.  The
>question arises, naturally, if the membership will be willing to vote
>themselves "out of office".  Has anyone been through this transition?
>Any words of wisdom to share?
>
>Stacey Otte
>Deputy Director
>Catalina Island Museum
>[log in to unmask]
>

Based on our nightmare experience last year at the Laguna Art Museum,
I am against bylaws that all but make it impossible for the membership
to change a board of directors.   When only those members who come to
the annual meeting can vote and even then it is just to ratify the
selection of the Board's nominating committee, you stand the risk of a
small group of people, over a matter of a few years, stacking the
board with people of like beliefs.  What happened to us was that board
membership changed gradually until only 6 of the 22 trustees were from
Laguna, and the board voted to merge the museum out of town.

With the help of a law suit we have our museum back and believe me, it
is a member oriented community museum.  Ballots for key by-law changes
and for trustees, are sent to all members for the annual meeting and
the ballot is secret.  

The issue is not that one should suspect a board will do something
wrong, but to protect the members by keeping power vested in them in
case the board goes astray.

If you would like some of the details of our battle, e-mail me as
below.  
--
John A. Bing
[log in to unmask]