Regional Directors

[mccoyred]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Hi there,

I am specifically trying to start a conversation about whether it is preferable to have regional directors serve as national board members, or if their duties would be best performed as members of the national staff.

While I see the wisdom of having RDs be elected volunteers, I like the idea of them being paid staff which would leave the politics out of membership-related decisions.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by mccoyred

While I see the wisdom of having RDs be elected volunteers, I like the idea of them being paid staff which would leave the politics out of membership-related decisions.

Absolutely.

There are many, many double standards in this field. I'm sure we've all heard of the small chapter with a single intake violation who was suspended until they ceased to exist, as well as the large, "prominent" chapter which could put somebody in the hospital and have a probate the same semester.

Further, I would argue that the elected nature of regional directors could have the adverse effect of politicizing all of the volunteer roles below it, whether it's area and district directors, state/cluster coordinators, or even people who get certified as a chapter advisor as a stepping stone.

This create a false set of qualifications to become a national officer. I, for one, don't care if my national president or treasurer served as a regional director first -- it's a totally different skill set. Regional directors aren't even afforded the time to consider strategic and governance issues in their organizations.