Critical shortfall of candidates

[Guest burbles1]

My post got buried in the other thread, so here goes again (for a board member):

 

Thought I'd say this sooner rather than at the last minute, to provoke some serious thought. We're going to have a shortfall of new candidates for the Board election. Have read, through my own enquiries, that a potential candidate might not be running. A shortfall in several states means reps will be re-elected, bringing with them the same thinking as before - at a time when RA-Aus seems to be at the beginning of a new era, and the need for new, forward-looking thinking and adaptation to changes is essential.

Can I get confirmation that, as I read from the Constitution (if it is, in fact, followed), clause 19 provides scope for an elected Board member (or is it the whole Board?) to delegate functions (specified in writing) to ordinary members. Does that mean an elected rep can nominate a small pool of "helpers" to assist with that Board member's work? Thereby reducing workload and, in turn, thereby making the proposition of running for election more attractive? I'm certainly concerned that the "perceived" workload for one person, undertaking possibly full-time functions, could be a turn-off for potential candidates. And surely such delegation to sub-committees should be seen as being more representative of members than one person alone making decisions without consultation on behalf of the region for which they are elected?

[Deskpilot]

Hi Burbles. I don't know the rightful answer to your question but I suspect it would be in order PROVIDED the board member actually reads, edits/acts upon where necessary and accepts any come back himself for the info HE actually submits to the full board. Does that make sense?

 

 

[Guernsey]

It's still a good idea. More people would put their hands up for the Board if they could get help and more people would put up their hands to be helpers because the work load would not be so great. Alan.