|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 205 of 332:
| 
Dec 16 17:19 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 206 of 332:
|
Dec 16 17:34 UTC 2001 |
It does seem radical. Generally in these cases the least radical solution
is prefered.
|
jp2
|
|
response 207 of 332:
|
Dec 16 17:38 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 208 of 332:
|
Dec 16 18:24 UTC 2001 |
Since the table is entirely a figment of your imagination, I don't find it
amazing at all.
|
jp2
|
|
response 209 of 332:
|
Dec 16 18:26 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 210 of 332:
|
Dec 16 21:40 UTC 2001 |
Thank you for your votes, people.
|
remmers
|
|
response 211 of 332:
|
Dec 16 22:30 UTC 2001 |
Adding a seat would require a bylaw amendment.
I find stereotyping to be distasteful, so I generally don't
indulge in it. However, if a generalization about Grex's
approach to rules is valid here, I think it would be that
Grex is into minimizing the number of rules, but not
breaking the ones that we *do* have.
|
aruba
|
|
response 212 of 332:
|
Dec 16 23:05 UTC 2001 |
Re #210: Thanks for running, Joe, and I hope you'll be willing to run again
next time. There were a lot of good candidates this time, and the voters
needed to make some tough choices.
|
other
|
|
response 213 of 332:
|
Dec 17 02:12 UTC 2001 |
Yet, with all those good candidates, I still managed to get elected
again... Hmm.
|
richard
|
|
response 214 of 332:
|
Dec 17 02:20 UTC 2001 |
at the next board meeting, flem and bhell can arm wrestle for the
tie breaker :)
|
richard
|
|
response 215 of 332:
|
Dec 17 02:37 UTC 2001 |
but actually, as one of the two people tied for fourth has just finished
serving a two year term, and the other has never had the opportunity to
serve, there is an honorable way of resolving this without further voting
or arm wrestling for that matter.
|
richard
|
|
response 216 of 332:
|
Dec 17 06:33 UTC 2001 |
Actually, does the board have the authority to authorize a runoff? If I
read the bylaws correctly, they call for elections to be held only between
the first and fifteenth of December unless there is a vacancy. The bylaws
dont provide for a runoff. But they do provide for special elections in
case of vacancy, within three months of the vacancy. Therefore a strict
interpretation of the bylaws would seem to indicate that since noone has
been elected to that final seat, that it be declared vacant at the first
board meeting of the year and a special election called. Which would be a
new election, not a runoff, requiring a new round of nominations.
/
|
mary
|
|
response 217 of 332:
|
Dec 17 12:11 UTC 2001 |
Nah. The bylaws simply don't address what to do in the event
of a tie. A runoff election sounds like the best way to go,
as others have suggested. And I really hope neither candidate
feels stepping back is the way to go but rather lets the members
decide.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 218 of 332:
|
Dec 17 14:25 UTC 2001 |
Well, since I would certainly lose in an arm wrestling competition, I
would certainly rather look for an alternative. :) While it is not
really my place to say how it is decided, I certainly agree with the
idea of a member vote.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 219 of 332:
|
Dec 17 14:37 UTC 2001 |
"Not my place" meaning my place as a candidate. :)
|
mooncat
|
|
response 220 of 332:
|
Dec 17 15:07 UTC 2001 |
I like the idea of holding a run-off election between Bhelliom and
Flem. It just makes the most sense to me to solve the problem that way.
|
remmers
|
|
response 221 of 332:
|
Dec 17 15:24 UTC 2001 |
Okay, so far four board members support a runoff (aruba, other,
mooncat, steve). The first three commented in this item, STeve
in item 71. We still haven't heard from eeyore, flem, and mdw.
|
pfv
|
|
response 222 of 332:
|
Dec 17 15:34 UTC 2001 |
A runoff sounds fine - limited period.
A cointoss sounds just as sensible, prolly faster ;-)
|
richard
|
|
response 223 of 332:
|
Dec 17 16:17 UTC 2001 |
The next two weeks are the holidays and numbers of folks will be out of
town or busy. does not seem like the appropriate time to be holding
another election.
maybe wait until january. OR since there were numbers of members who
didnt vote, simply reopen the polls for the just ended election and
extend voting for a few more days. or a week.
|
remmers
|
|
response 224 of 332:
|
Dec 17 16:23 UTC 2001 |
I'm starting to lean towards a coin toss or similar chance event,
the logic being that since it was a tie, the electorate expressed
no preference between the two.
|
richard
|
|
response 225 of 332:
|
Dec 17 16:42 UTC 2001 |
as I stated in item #71, I dont think a runoff is fair to the candidates
because neither of them ran with the expectation of there being a
possibility of having to be in a one on one runoff. A runoff puts them in
a position where voters who didnt vote for them in the first place get to
not vote for them again. I dont think you put candidates for office
through that unless they agree to it before accepting a nomination.
The logical thing to do is let the board vote on the vacancy at the first
meeting. And the board can simply vote to elect the candidate who got the
most votes, all votes including non-member votes. This allows the board
to make a decision without having to make a choice.
|
richard
|
|
response 226 of 332:
|
Dec 17 17:16 UTC 2001 |
Also the purpose of only letting the top vote getters in a runoff is
normally to ensure that whoever wins gets over 50% of the vote. Since
that isnt the objective here, I submit that kaplan, gelinas and jp2 would
have every right to be included in the runoff as well. they were all
on the ballot and there was no clear fourth place winner. no reason
they shouldnt get the same opportunity for a second chance
|
jp2
|
|
response 227 of 332:
|
Dec 17 17:30 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 228 of 332:
|
Dec 17 17:35 UTC 2001 |
richard, what passes for logic in your mind makes baron munchausen look
like a CPA.
|
richard
|
|
response 229 of 332:
|
Dec 17 17:45 UTC 2001 |
why do you say that other? Kaplan got 21 votes, only three fewer than
bhell and flem. Based on that, you cant say with any degree of certainty
that he wouldnt be able to win a runoff. Its unlikely that gelinas or jp2
could have a realistic chance of winning a runoff, so you can use that
basis to exclude them if need be. It just simplifies matters to say, hey
there was no fourth place winner, so everyone who ran and didnt win is
eligible for the runoff *shrug*
|