I'm thinking we should discuss who will seek to be one of EnAct's officers next year and the structure and concept of the positions - accomplishing some dialogue and at least preparatory thought here onj the blog in the run-up to the meeting Monday.
1) What should be the structure of EnAct leadership? The idea of 3 tri-chairs was popular at the last meeting. Do we actually need 4 co-chairs to accomplish all of our ambitious plans, given the inconsistency of the block plan and our presumably increasingly academically intense lives and tighter schedules? Laura Parker told me she thinks 4 chairs is what we need. In addition, I think it is important to have a Treasurer; Secretary; Outreach Head; and Internet Pointperson within EnAct. Ideally for me these positions and their responsibility would be covered by people who are not also EnAct chairs, but I imagine some chairs will double in these positions. Laura Parker would be a great Treasurer given her experience, and she has expressed some interest in this. Wiley Roberts expressed some interest in being the Internet Pointperson. Should we omit or add any positions or have them at all? Thoughts in general?
2) Should we have elections for officer positions to give a clear authority and legitimacy to the officers, or simply determine who will be the officers by finding consensus through a roundtable discussion, or do the former if the latter doesn't narrow the field to the correct possitions? How should people be eligible to run - personal decision alone, or the requirement of nomination by others?
3) Who is running for officer positions? I know Katie Eberle and David Sullivan mentioned that they think they will run for chairs. I know I am considering doing so as well while also pondering how that would relate to my position as chair of the Climate Change CC subgroup. Anyone interested in the non-chair officer positions?
Charlie
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sounds like a good idea. I would like to be involved in EnAct 2.0. I would like to head up the communications side of things i.e., internet, website, blog management, maybe some publications stuff. Anyways, I realize that I have not been very involved in EnAct over the last 3 years, but I am still very excited and dedicated to the goals we have established. Having a formal position would provide a level of responsibility that would make me feel more invested in EnAct. Are we going to vote?
I think we should vote after a roundtable discussion that's more an open-ended dialogue on how best to structure and man EnAct 2.0.
Post a Comment