|
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
1997 Board Election Results
| 
Dec 16 07:36 UTC 1997 |
The results of the 1997 Board of Directors election are in. Out
of 96 eligible voters, 44 cast ballots. Totals:
aruba 41
dang 28
mta 27
scott 24
other 18
mziemba 15
llanarth 10
jared 8
So the winners are Mark Conger, Dan Gryniewicz, Misti Tucker, and
Scott Helmke. Congratulations!
Only members' votes were counted in determining the outcome. But
anyone could vote, and 43 non-members cast ballots. The unofficial
non-member totals are:
aruba 21
llanarth 19
scott 17
mta 16
dang 14
other 14
mziemba 11
jared 7
This was the first election in which it was possible to vote via
the web, and 17 folks cast ballots that way.
|
| 56 responses total. |
mziemba
|
|
response 1 of 56:
|
Dec 16 09:56 UTC 1997 |
Congrats Mark, Dan, Misti, and Scott! It was a pleasure campaigning alongside
you!
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 56:
|
Dec 16 15:53 UTC 1997 |
exactly as I predicted...no non-incumbents ever had a chance
|
remmers
|
|
response 3 of 56:
|
Dec 16 16:48 UTC 1997 |
True, the voters did indicate confidence in the incumbents. The
bylaws' term limit proviso (which, incidentally, you attacked as
"undemocratic" a few years ago when you found out about it) will
guarantee that some new people will be elected next year, though.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 56:
|
Dec 16 16:58 UTC 1997 |
Why do you think incumbents should be thrown out, Richard, if the
electorate thinks they are doing a good job?
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 56:
|
Dec 16 20:25 UTC 1997 |
they werent elected simply becaue they were doing a good job, but because
more people with familiar with them. When was the last time an incumbent
running for re-election didnt get re-eected...Im not sure its happened.
|
dang
|
|
response 6 of 56:
|
Dec 16 21:52 UTC 1997 |
(I seem to remember beating a former board member last time. Granted, there
wasn't an incumbent, because Rob had resigned, but...)
|
robh
|
|
response 7 of 56:
|
Dec 16 21:59 UTC 1997 |
Richard, I repeat my offer: You write up an amendment proposal,
and I will sponsor it.
|
aruba
|
|
response 8 of 56:
|
Dec 16 22:35 UTC 1997 |
Re #5: The last time an incumbent was not elected was 2 years ago, Richard.
Thanks to everyone who voted for me - I'm glad to see you think I'm doing
a good job. When I became treasurer my only experience with accounting
was balancing my checkbook, so the rest I have made up along the way.
(Not true, actually - danr gave me a very good start and told me most of
what I needed to know. I still do some of the standard jobs the same way
he did.) I'm glad that things have gone (relatively) smoothly for the
past two years, and I hope they stay that way.
|
aruba
|
|
response 9 of 56:
|
Dec 16 22:49 UTC 1997 |
(And I'm sorry about all the nagging!)
|
valerie
|
|
response 10 of 56:
|
Dec 17 00:09 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 11 of 56:
|
Dec 17 01:03 UTC 1997 |
#5 is the usual cynical attitude of those generally opposed to any authority.
|
davel
|
|
response 12 of 56:
|
Dec 17 03:20 UTC 1997 |
Richard, do you have any ghost of a shred of an element of evidence to support
your claim in #5? Do you have specific, clear grounds for claiming that the
incumbents weren't doing a good job? If not, kindly do others the courtesy
of not telling them what they were thinking when they voted.
|
robh
|
|
response 13 of 56:
|
Dec 17 03:27 UTC 1997 |
Ah, but Richard doesn't think they were bad candidates because
they did a bad job - they were incumbents, and therefore Evil
Incarnate. Just like Bill Clinton, right Richard? Or is it okay
to re-elect an incumbent when it's someone you, Richard Wallner,
approve of?
|
steve
|
|
response 14 of 56:
|
Dec 17 03:29 UTC 1997 |
My, the first item I look at in coop in far too long and I hear
Richard's bleating. It's a new constant in the universe, I think.
Congratulations to all.
|
lilmo
|
|
response 15 of 56:
|
Dec 17 03:34 UTC 1997 |
Is it worth responding to that sort of thing?
|
scg
|
|
response 16 of 56:
|
Dec 17 04:46 UTC 1997 |
In past board elections, lots of people, including me, have gone on about what
a wonderful slate of candidates it was, how all of them were good, and how
hard it was to make a decision. That's usually been mostly true, but in the
last few elections I have been able to decide fairly easily who to vote for,
despite being firmly convinced that it didn't matter of some of the other
candidates won instead. This election, on the other hand, was a very
difficult decision. There were some of the new candidates who I really
thought should be on the board. At the same time, all the incumbants had been
good enough board members that I didn't want to vote against any of them.
In the end, I pretty much had to close my eyes and pick some candidates,
almost at random.
|
richard
|
|
response 17 of 56:
|
Dec 17 18:59 UTC 1997 |
Stop putting words inmy mouth! I never said the incumbents werent
doing a good job (I wish some of you would re-read your own responses
sometimes because you do get carried away and read toomuch into things)
I simply see being on the grex board as a cool activity and one that
other people should have the chance to participate in. I dont think
non-incumbents have an equal opportunity to participate because they
dont (as a practical fact) have an equal opportunity to be elected. They
just dont.
Why cant there be a rule that at least *one* seat in each election HAS
to go to a new member. This way even if the top four vote getters were
all the incumbents, the one with the least votes would stand down in favor
of the new person who had finished fifth. It is fair and it allows for
the board tobe guaranteed newblood every election. That is a healthy thing!
|
aruba
|
|
response 18 of 56:
|
Dec 17 19:27 UTC 1997 |
Well, I hate to sound like a guidance counselor, but being on the board is
more than just a "cool activity" - it can be a lot of work, and it demands a
lot of time and responsibility.
Having said that, I agree that it's nice to have new people on the board now
and then, if for no other reason than that people get burned out. But I am
skeptical that your method is a good one, richard - it could easily seem
bitterly unfair to someone that they lose an election even though they got
more votes than someone who won.
|
janc
|
|
response 19 of 56:
|
Dec 17 20:20 UTC 1997 |
I would have liked to see some of the new candidates elected, and voted for
several, but I'm pretty satisfied with the board members we got.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 56:
|
Dec 17 20:50 UTC 1997 |
Anyone can attend board meetings and participate. How much cooler can
you get?
|
richard
|
|
response 21 of 56:
|
Dec 17 23:01 UTC 1997 |
I just think that if grex wants to encourage more people to become
members, and encourage more members to become involved, it has to
demonstrate that the opportunities are there. Let's face it, most of
the people who vote dont go to the meetings, and dont have a true idea
if one person is doing a better job than another. So it becomes a
social thing. You end up voting for those you know personally, or are
most familiar with, which gives incumbents (as is the case in all
political elections) the advantage. What you end up with is the same
people being elected, and then when they can't run again, those who
served before them are rotated back in to serve again. You get the same
people over and over and over. No new people ever get a chance. The
Grex board is an exclusive club, seven seats that have continually
rotated among the same ten or twelve people.
Why not designate all "open" seats, which is to say those where there is
no incumbent because that person has served two terms and cant run
again, as seats for new members. Say only new members can run for those
seats. Everyone else, present and past incumbents, can run for all the
other seats as usual. You have two separate elections on the ballot,
one for the "open" seats, and one for the non-open seats.
This would guarantee a much healthier turnover on the board, and
guarantee that many more people get to participate. It will send the
right message about grex, that grex is inclusive and not exclusive.
|
davel
|
|
response 22 of 56:
|
Dec 17 23:09 UTC 1997 |
<bites tongue hard>
|
carson
|
|
response 23 of 56:
|
Dec 17 23:11 UTC 1997 |
(thanks to remmers for enabling vote-casting over the Web!)
|
richard
|
|
response 24 of 56:
|
Dec 17 23:22 UTC 1997 |
or why not expand the board to nine seats, and say that the two new seats
are "newbie" seats, one-term only seats designated for those who have
never served before. These two seats can be contested separately, and
would guarantee two new faces every election. Those who serve as
"newbie members" cannot run for re-election to those seats, but could
run at that time for the regular seats.
This would give more people a chance, a fair chance, to serve on the
board.
|