|
Grex > Coop12 > #49: Nominations for the Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 332 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 262 of 332:
| 
Dec 19 18:03 UTC 2001 |
if it is to be a coin flip, why not just say they are both board members
and if both show up and the other six members are present at any meeting,
THEN they have a flip a coin as to who can be official for that meeting.
since all the board members dont show up for every meeting, there ought
to be plenty of times where both can vote.
|
jep
|
|
response 263 of 332:
|
Dec 19 18:22 UTC 2001 |
The reason not to accept both on the Board is that the by-laws do not
specify 8 board members; they specify 7 board members. It may be
worthwhile to add another Board member, but that's a separate
decision. It shouldn't be just put into place on an ad hoc basis in
order to avoid the need to make a decision on how this election is
decided.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 264 of 332:
|
Dec 19 18:37 UTC 2001 |
Actually, there is an odd number for a reason....this way there cannot be a
tie on a major issue, with all members voting.
|
remmers
|
|
response 265 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:03 UTC 2001 |
However the tie is resolved, I think it should result in one of
bhelliom and flem being a board member for a regular two year term.
It can't be both.
The board should decide this soon, since terms expire on December
31. If they decide on a runoff, I'd suggest they also decide how
a tie in the runoff is to be handled.
|
richard
|
|
response 266 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:15 UTC 2001 |
Surely if regular elections run 15 days, then a runoff would have to
run 15 days. There arent 15 days left in the year, meaning there
doesnt seem to be time to hold a runoff. Once it is past year-end,
the seat becomes officially vacant, and the bylaws require a special
election, not a runoff, to fill a vacancy. Sounds like a coin toss,
arm wrestling, pick a number, something arbitrary is the way to go
|
keesan
|
|
response 267 of 332:
|
Dec 19 19:28 UTC 2001 |
Would it be reasonable, in a runoff election, to limit the election only to
people who already voted? And if they did not get around to voting again,
count their previous vote? (If someone voted for both candidates and did not
revote, their previous vote would of course be irrelevant). I think someone
was concerned about people being out of town and unable to vote again.
|
richard
|
|
response 268 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:39 UTC 2001 |
could limit the re-vote to *only* those who voted for both bhell and flem
on their ballots. if the vote program can be set up to allow only those
people to vote. Any idea how many voted for both-- I know mdw said he did--
it might only have been several people.
|
other
|
|
response 269 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:49 UTC 2001 |
1st Choice: The two tied candidates, the voteadm and the Chair get
together as soon as possible. The voteadm writes "heads" on one slip of
paper, "tails" on another, and nothing at all on a third slip of paper
(just to randomize a little), and the candidates each draw one slip of
paper at random to determine what the outcome of the coin toss will
indicate. Then, the Chair will flip a coin and the candidate whose
designation, as determined by the slips of paper, matches the result,
wins.
2nd Choice: A truncated, but otherwise normal, election will be held,
lasting one week and ending before 1 January 2002. The voters will each
choose one or the other of the two tied candidates. The Chair will
abstain from voting until and unless it is determined that the election
has resulted in a tie. If the election ends in a tie, the voteadm will
inform the Chair, at which point the Chair will cast the deciding vote.
The results of the election will then be made public, but the vote count
and whether or not the Chair voted will not be made public unless the
Chair decides approves the release of that information. (This is to
protect the privacy of the Chair's vote.)
|
other
|
|
response 270 of 332:
|
Dec 19 20:56 UTC 2001 |
Oh, addition to 1st Choice: The candidates shall draw their slips of
paper before the coin flip, but shall neither read nor reveal what is
written (or not written) on their slips of paper until after the Chair
has flipped the coin, so as not to influence the flip.
|
scott
|
|
response 271 of 332:
|
Dec 19 21:31 UTC 2001 |
Flip the damn coin, already. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 272 of 332:
|
Dec 19 21:37 UTC 2001 |
My first choice is still a runoff between the two candidates, but I could be
talked into having a coin toss. I actually kind of like Richard's idea
about flipping a coin whenever both show up, but as jep says, it's a little
too radical to be supported in the bylaws.
Do we need to have a special board meeting to hash this out?
I think we have heard from all the board except Marcus and Greg.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 273 of 332:
|
Dec 19 22:24 UTC 2001 |
Sorry, while a coin toss might be expedient, it's just "stupid" for grex,
where there is voting software that can be deployed "in an instant". Simply
set up the run off election, for whatever duration seems reasonable (how about
until the end of the year), and have at it. And none of this crud about "only
people that voted the first time" or "only people that voted for one of the
candidates that tied". The only issue that would be left would be if the run
off itself ended in a tie...
|
jp2
|
|
response 274 of 332:
|
Dec 20 00:20 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
davel
|
|
response 275 of 332:
|
Dec 20 01:30 UTC 2001 |
Re 267: Sindi, I think I'd be against an election where the list of eligible
voters is a secret. And I'd say that, people having voted with the
understanding that their ballot was secret, we certainly can't announce which
voters voted for flem & bhelliom. I really don't think it can be made to
work.
Re 273: I don't think a coin toss is stupid, under the circumstances.
There's been enough discussion of who should be eligible to vote in a runoff
(those eligible as voters at the time of the election? those eligible at the
time of the runoff? those who actually voted in the election? or Sindi's
suggestion, for that matter) to make it clear that it's not obvious how such
a runoff should be conducted. (Personally, I'd actually favor a coin toss,
in the face of these issues.)
You just blow off those issues, and the issue of duration, as if they don't
matter. They do.
|
gull
|
|
response 276 of 332:
|
Dec 20 02:58 UTC 2001 |
I don't see how they make much of a difference. I find it interesting
that you think a completely arbitrary random process is a better way of
selecting a board member than a vote, though.
|
janc
|
|
response 277 of 332:
|
Dec 20 05:27 UTC 2001 |
I don't see any compelling reason why this has to be handled before the
beginning of the new year. Go ahead and do the full 15 days.
|
scg
|
|
response 278 of 332:
|
Dec 20 06:46 UTC 2001 |
If nobody was elected to this seat, should it be treated as an open seat under
the bylaws, as currently written?
|
eeyore
|
|
response 279 of 332:
|
Dec 20 08:36 UTC 2001 |
The problem isn't that nobody was elected, it's that too many people we
elected to fill the position.
Personally, I'd prefer the voteoff. And Jan is right....if we go a few days
into next year, what difference is it really going to make? So the full 15
days would still really not be an issue, although I'd have no problems with
a shorter time span.
THe thing with the coin toss is that if we did go that route, I'd rather see
both Greg & Sylvia there, along with a couple of people not involved, just
to keep everything kosher. I know that the people that we are talking about
are all trustworthy and all, but it's easier if it's all clean from the
beginning. That's also why I prefer the voting method....it's easier to run
the software than to get the two of them plus whomever else in the same place
at the same time!
|
richard
|
|
response 280 of 332:
|
Dec 20 14:26 UTC 2001 |
The bylaws state that the Board must consist of "seven individual members"
of Grex. It doesnt state, not anywhere, that it must be the same seven at
every single meeting. There is no bylaw restriction which says Flem and
Bhell can't share the seat as I suggested previously. As neither one of
them lost, this seems the fairest thing. Why MUST there be a choice
made to exclude one of them
|
jep
|
|
response 281 of 332:
|
Dec 20 14:30 UTC 2001 |
I do see it as compelling to make a decision about how to proceed, and
then to get on with selecting the 7th Board member. Grex is not a
competitive environment, there's not a lot of prestige or esteem (and
no money) at stake, but I'd still think it would be at least a little
stressful for the candidates not to know if they've been elected. I
also think it will be beneficial for the members, users and the rest of
the Board to know who is on the Board.
If there's going to be another election, then I think it should begin
as soon as possible. If there's going to be a coin toss or paper-slip
drawing, the date and procedure should be set soon.
I don't think it's a difficult decision, about how to proceed. There's
no really bad choice being considered. This isn't something that
requires much more discussion or deliberation. I'd suggest it doesn't
even merit a special meeting, if the by-laws permit an alternative.
Grex just needs to have a way to break a tie, and then it needs to use
that method. This is not a big deal.
|
richard
|
|
response 282 of 332:
|
Dec 20 15:01 UTC 2001 |
Or another way of saying it could be that one of them gets to be
a regular board member, and the other one gets to be "first alternate".
The "first alternate" would get to act as an official board member at any
meeting where this person is present and a regular member is absent. If
there have ben problems in the past making quota, this arrangement could
have helped solve that.
|
gull
|
|
response 283 of 332:
|
Dec 20 17:13 UTC 2001 |
I think it's bending the language of the bylaws quite a bit to suggest that
having 8 board members instead of 7 is okay as long as they don't all show
up at once.
|
richard
|
|
response 284 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:11 UTC 2001 |
the bylaws were left deliberately vague to be open to interpretation.
both flem and bhell got enough votes to qualify for the fourth open
board position. the bylaws dont *specifically* say they cant both
serve in that spot if they come to a mutual arrangement. and as long
as the bylaws arent the issue, what other problem would there be with it?
I cant believe that solution is so much more objectionable than forcing
one of them to be declared the loser.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 285 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:48 UTC 2001 |
As near as I can tell, exactly one person is in favor of having eight board
members, while everyone is in favor of having only seven.
The majority wins, Richard. Drop it.
|
keesan
|
|
response 286 of 332:
|
Dec 20 18:58 UTC 2001 |
It was a clever and original suggestion, though. The loser could still always
come to board meetings and participate without voting, if they felt like it.
I don't think either candidate is likely to feel bad about losing, if that
is something Richard is concerned about.
|