The issue is not that leaders decided to set their burden down, nor that they did not have someone ready to take it over. It is that having decided that they could not lead, they sought to toss FurFright off a cliff rather than let someone else pick it up, out of fear that any new leaders might fail to do justice to its name, and theirs.
This would be fine (if not ideal) if it had been a privately-run event. In fact, it is a public charity, and its tax-free revenues have been used to develop the name which has been "claimed back" by its founders.
I believe you and Blindsight are lead founders of Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario, Furnal Equinox's official body. If you decided that you could no longer run Furnal Equinox, would you see it as your right to terminate it and AEO, rather than pass it onto other board members, or to the most-qualified community members? How would you feel if your successor sought to make such a decision?
If this were an isolated incident, it would not be such a concern. We have seen two furry conventions falter in a similar fashion in the last six months. I fear that this indicates a widespread misunderstanding of one of the principles of non-profit governance - that the first and last duty of any fiduciary is to find the best way to continue the organization's mission, disregarding their personal interests.
The issue is not that leaders decided to set their burden down, nor that they did not have someone ready to take it over. It is that having decided that they could not lead, they sought to toss FurFright off a cliff rather than let someone else pick it up, out of fear that any new leaders might fail to do justice to its name, and theirs.
This would be fine (if not ideal) if it had been a privately-run event. In fact, it is a public charity, and its tax-free revenues have been used to develop the name which has been "claimed back" by its founders.
I believe you and Blindsight are lead founders of Anthropomorphic Events of Ontario, Furnal Equinox's official body. If you decided that you could no longer run Furnal Equinox, would you see it as your right to terminate it and AEO, rather than pass it onto other board members, or to the most-qualified community members? How would you feel if your successor sought to make such a decision?
If this were an isolated incident, it would not be such a concern. We have seen two furry conventions falter in a similar fashion in the last six months. I fear that this indicates a widespread misunderstanding of one of the principles of non-profit governance - that the first and last duty of any fiduciary is to find the best way to continue the organization's mission, disregarding their personal interests.