bylaws III

Ray Saintonge wrote on Wikipedia-l
>I'm not challenging Florida law on this.  Rather the point is that if 
>only one Board exists in an organization, the same name should 
>be used consistently.  Having two separate Boards with different 
>duties is a real possibility, and the use of both terms lends support 
>to that.  

I think the use of the term 'Board of Directors' was a slip-up since there is 
no provision for such a body in the by-laws and that term is usually reserved 
for the boards of for-profits, while 'Board of Trustees' is traditionally 
reserved for the boards of non-profits. 

We may in the future want to divorce office-holder duties from the trustees by 
having separate officers (president, vice president, secretary and treasurer) 
appointed by the trustees and then confirmed by the membership. The trustees 
would then just be the keepers of the by-laws and overseers of the appointed 
officers (it would then be the officers that would run the day-to-day 
operations of the foundation). 

Under that set-up the trustees would still have to be directly elected by the 
membership (just as the board of directors of many large corporations are 
elected by shareholders; the board in turn appoints officers). 

But having a mixed set-up for the first few years is perfectly fine, IMO. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)