|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
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".
|
richard
|
|
response 250 of 332:
|
Dec 18 16:13 UTC 2001 |
how is just letting the board vote which one they want more complex?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 251 of 332:
|
Dec 18 18:51 UTC 2001 |
Now thatr I'm awake to respond....:)
I personally prefer the voting idea. I don't think I could give you a solid
reason for it, aside from the fact that it seems a hell of alot more
professional than a coin toss. My ideal would be to have a vote off, that
only lasts 7-10 days, that way it's all covered by the end of the year.
|
jep
|
|
response 252 of 332:
|
Dec 18 21:59 UTC 2001 |
In response #189, Richard asked about what happens if there is a tie.
I think he deserves some credit for his prescience.
Larry Kestenbaum told the Arbornet board some years ago, while he and I
were both on it, that tie elections are often decided by a coin toss.
It surprised me, but I recall in some election in the area this method
was actually used.
The reason for it is that it's expensive in "real life" to host a
second election, and a big imposition on the voters to make them go
back to the polls again. They might not vote a second time, in which
case a smaller number of voters would make the final decision for the
election. Or possibly more will vote in the second election. What if
more people vote for both runoff candidates than voted for the lowest
totalled winner from the original election? Do both runoff candidates
get seats and one of the original winners is considered a loser?
There's validity for those arguments for Grex, too. In addition, for
Grex, what happens to a voter who was eligible the first time, but due
to a lapsed membership, is no longer eligible now. What about people
who weren't voters then but are now? Isn't it possible there could
really *be* an attempt to undermine the election?
Couldn't the runoff be modified to include all of those who didn't win
election the first time? Why wouldn't that be as valid as just having
the runoff for the two tied candidates?
I'm not trying to hyperbolize the situation or complicate matters for
Grex. I apologize if I'm making things more difficult for anyone. But
I think the coin toss method is probably the simplest and best solution
under the circumstances.
|
richard
|
|
response 253 of 332:
|
Dec 19 01:45 UTC 2001 |
I dont think a coin toss should be necessary nor an election. The board
prospers from diversity and from having many different users be given
the chance to serve. If there is a tie, and one of the participants is
a current or past board member, and the other has never served, that ought
to be the criteria. The board should ask Flem, since he has just served
two years on the board, to withdraw. Let Bhell, who has never served and
got the same number of votes, have her chance on the board. Flem can run
again in a year. That is fair.
|
gull
|
|
response 254 of 332:
|
Dec 19 03:57 UTC 2001 |
Do we really want to assume new blood is always the best? (No offense
to anyone involved in this case, I'm just speaking in general.)
|