27-06-2015, 07:18 PM
robin moore Wrote:On the topic of length of term of directors, I welcome the proposed change to two years and personally would be happy with three years.
In a role such as IJD, you have constant selection processes and international events. The amount of time involved organising and contacting everyone is quite frightening. A longer directorship term gives the security of a welcome opportunity to gain experience and integrate your own ideas and plans into the post.
One question on the proposed new structure.... Is it possible for any one person to have more than one role?
Getting topic back onto track.
When individuals volunteer for office they volunteer to work for 12 months, unpaid, for CS.
If these changes come into effect then they would instead have to volunteer for 24 months unpaid work. Prediction - there will be less volunteers stepping forward.
The proposed constitution actually states that approximately 50% of directors will be replaced in alternate years
Prediction in 2016 approximately zero percent will be be due for re-election. In 2017 approximately 100%
It is the function of the constitution to state the length of time appointments last for. Speculating on the percentage changeover per year should not be included.
For the IJD role I confirm Robin's view that there is a massive amount of work required. However, there is no steep learning curve involved. All that is required is the ability to work with numbers, words, communications, and children efficiently - and sufficient hours to get the job done. Hitting the ground running in year one I found was no harder than doing the same job in year two.