How to elect a board instead of electing individuals

In the community meeting at Nest, I noted there is a method for board elections commonly used in my area that many Nestlings were not familiar with; so I will repost it here. It is used by many Dutch hobby-, sport-, and student clubs. A typical club has 50 to 1000 members, and a board consisting of a president, secretary, and treasurer; and up to four additional members depending on the nature of the club (e.g. one responsible for organizing tournaments, or for press contacts). To be clear, this post is informative; it is not a proposal that the Nest adopts this system.

Once per year, the board will ask applications for prospective board members, interview them, and nominate a new board. A public meeting is then called, in which the general members vote for or against this new board. Importantly, they do not vote for individual members, but for the new board as a whole. First, this is to get a board that will cover its bases and work together as a team (rather than a set of individuals); and second because certain positions (e.g. treasurer) require a particular skillset rather than a popular person. Some clubs replace half the board each year, to improve continuity; and most clubs have limits on how long an individual can be a board member.

In most cases, public meetings are called by the board and a new board is easily approved. However, if leadership is in dispute, members can also call a public meeting (without requiring board approval), and can nominate their own prospective board instead (again, subject to vote by the membership). Clearly, doing so requires finding enough people to fill all board positions and willing to work together as a team. This mechanism is uncommonly used, but exists as a safety valve.

Public meetings also serve for accountability: yearly, the board makes a budget plan, and this is discussed at a public meeting, and subject to a public approval vote. At the next meeting, the board reports results. If the board wants to do something large or unusual this would also require an approval vote, a would e.g. increasing membership fees. To ensure fairness, public meetings need to be announced (with full agenda) to the entire membership at least two weeks in advance, and any approval vote requires at least 10% of members to be present. These numbers vary slightly from club to club, of course.

Overall, this provides for a means of transferring leadership subject to members' approval and accountability, while avoiding individuals campaigning against each other, or votes becoming a popularity contest. If people have questions on this approach I am happy to answer them here.