|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
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*
|
carson
|
|
response 230 of 332:
|
Dec 17 18:19 UTC 2001 |
I am amused to learn that Sylvia believes she would not win an arm-wrestling
contest with Greg.
|
jp2
|
|
response 231 of 332:
|
Dec 17 18:24 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 232 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:02 UTC 2001 |
<remmers is leaning even more strongly toward a coin toss>
|
krj
|
|
response 233 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:24 UTC 2001 |
Drawing slips out of hat is extensible to a N-way tie.
|
remmers
|
|
response 234 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:26 UTC 2001 |
Yep, or dealing cards from a well-shuffled deck.
|
richard
|
|
response 235 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:42 UTC 2001 |
Could make this easy, just say both bhell and flem finished fourth--
by the stipulations they are therefore both elected. The bylaws say
that the board must have seven "voting" members. It doesnt say,
does it, that there cant be more members so long as no more than seven
are authorized to vote at any one meeting.
so the board can agree that for the next year only, whoever is elected
chairman of the board agrees to abstain from voting in the event the other
seven board members are present. probably wont be many meetings where all
eight show up anyway.
The other alternative would be for bhell and flem to share the seat. One
holding it during even month board meetings, the other in odd months.
|
mdw
|
|
response 236 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:44 UTC 2001 |
Last I checked, 8 != 7
|
richard
|
|
response 237 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:49 UTC 2001 |
The bylaws state:
"The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven individual members of
Grex"
This doesnt say that the seven members that constitute the board need be
the same exact people at every meeting. If the membership chooses to
elect more than seven people to act as board members, as appears happened
here, what difference would it make so long as only seven are actually
voting at any specific meeting?
|
richard
|
|
response 238 of 332:
|
Dec 17 19:59 UTC 2001 |
or flem and bhell can work it out between each other at each meeting.
if both show up, only one can vote. flip a coin, arm wrestle, alternate
months. whatever. leave it up to them.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 239 of 332:
|
Dec 17 22:19 UTC 2001 |
Regarding resp:229, I may run for the BOD again next year. But I'm
done running for this year. In the unlikely event that there is a
runoff election similar to what richard has proposed, I don't want to
be a candidate.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 240 of 332:
|
Dec 17 23:04 UTC 2001 |
I think there should be a run-off, ASAP, and it should be between the two tied
candidates ONLY. The membership is evenly split between them right now, but
that is probably because of 'vote diffusion'. Eliminating the failed
candiidates will eliminate the diffusion.
|
carson
|
|
response 241 of 332:
|
Dec 17 23:56 UTC 2001 |
It also will force the members who were able to vote for both choices
to make a decision between them.
|
aruba
|
|
response 242 of 332:
|
Dec 18 00:38 UTC 2001 |
Richard, you just live for this stuff, don't you?
|
gull
|
|
response 243 of 332:
|
Dec 18 01:18 UTC 2001 |
I also think that the board should consider amending the bylaws to
indicate what happens in a tie, to shut up people like richard in the
future. ;)
|
davel
|
|
response 244 of 332:
|
Dec 18 02:10 UTC 2001 |
(1) The board doesn't amend the bylaws.
(2) Amending the bylaws probably wouldn't shut up some people; they would
just complain about the specified method, argue, or (if members) enter
motions for new, different amendments to the bylaws.
None of the above should be taken to mean that I wouldn't support a reasonable
amendment to the bylaws.
|
i
|
|
response 245 of 332:
|
Dec 18 04:08 UTC 2001 |
If it's a two-year term in question and the members expressed no preference
between the two candidates, just have each of them serve one of the two
years.
|
spooked
|
|
response 246 of 332:
|
Dec 18 05:04 UTC 2001 |
Excellent suggestion, Walter! Just flip a coin to decide which year, if
they are undecided between who wants to serve which year.
|
richard
|
|
response 247 of 332:
|
Dec 18 14:26 UTC 2001 |
that would also require an amendment of the bylaws
board terms are two years.
|
mary
|
|
response 248 of 332:
|
Dec 18 15:31 UTC 2001 |
A bylaws ammendement would be fine. There are a whole lot of things
not spelled out in the bylaws. That was intentional, actually. The
membership has always been encouraged to tweek them as needed.
But right now we need to get one of these two on the board. I'd like
to hear their opinions on whether they'd like a coin toss or a vote of
the membership. But I really see no reason to make this any more
complex than either of those two choices.
|
mary
|
|
response 249 of 332:
|
Dec 18 15:32 UTC 2001 |
Er, make that "amendment".
|