|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 50 of 139:
| 
Dec 19 09:17 UTC 2001 |
If we do decide to go with a runoff vote, lapsed memberships and new
memberships don't have to be an issue. We _could_ stipulate that only people
who were eligible the first time around can vote -- or even that only people
whe voted the first time can vote again.
We still can't force people to vote, though. And that means it'll still be
possible to have a different voter base for the runoff.
I wonder whether that's really such a big deal. There's a different voter
base in the primaries than there is in a presidential election. There's a
different voter base in the supreme court when an issue comes before them
again after a long delay. Somehow, the political process limps on.
|
jp2
|
|
response 51 of 139:
|
Dec 19 13:05 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
jep
|
|
response 52 of 139:
|
Dec 19 14:39 UTC 2001 |
re #48: A coin toss could be done in any manner which ensures fairness
and sufficient oversight. I'd suggest the coin be tossed by the
president, treasurer or election administrator, at a time when both
candidates can be present. The next board meeting sounds to me like a
good time, but as long as the candidates both consider it fairly done,
I'd consider any other factors to be secondary.
|
janc
|
|
response 53 of 139:
|
Dec 19 14:54 UTC 2001 |
Re #49: Yes. Some memberships go from the 15th of the month to the 15th of
the next month.
I don't see why the run off has to be voted on by the exact same set of
members as the first member. It's not like the membership is going to remain
the same for the whole two years that the board members serve. In fact, the
membership 15 days later is likely to be marginally closer in character to
the membership during their term. If we ever had a recall vote, you wouldn't
expect to only have the same people vote who elected the person. The runoff
should be handled exactly like any other Grex election.
|
aruba
|
|
response 54 of 139:
|
Dec 19 15:10 UTC 2001 |
Right, I agree with Jan.
|
davel
|
|
response 55 of 139:
|
Dec 19 15:10 UTC 2001 |
Re 52: John, I'd hate to see it nailed down in the bylaws that both
candidates must be present. That could delay things quite a while.
I think I'm also for a coin toss or something similar.
|
richard
|
|
response 56 of 139:
|
Dec 19 16:10 UTC 2001 |
but should a coin toss be one toss or best two out of three or best
three out of five. I'd think both candidates would have to be present
and agree that the coin toss was done fairly.
|
jep
|
|
response 57 of 139:
|
Dec 19 19:06 UTC 2001 |
I'd say both candidates should at least agree that the coin flip (or
whatever other random process is used) was fair, even if they can't
both be present. Anyone capable of getting 24 votes from Grexers is
probably reasonable enough to rationally evaluate the fairness of such
a process and accept a reasonable and fair solution.
|
keesan
|
|
response 58 of 139:
|
Dec 19 19:36 UTC 2001 |
Re 41, it would take a large number of alternate universes to implement all
of Richard's suggestions, which I usually find interesting even if rarely
practicable. He brings up a lot of points nobody else would ever think of.
|
richard
|
|
response 59 of 139:
|
Dec 19 20:42 UTC 2001 |
Here's how to do it-- right before the first board meeting, bhell and flem
and several observers go to a local bar near the meeting site. then
they settle who gets to be board member the gentlemanly way-- they
have a beer chugging contest. they each get a mug of beer and whoever
can get theirs down first gets to be a board member. Purely scientific :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 60 of 139:
|
Dec 19 21:44 UTC 2001 |
Sign me up for that universe!
|
albaugh
|
|
response 61 of 139:
|
Dec 19 22:43 UTC 2001 |
I'm in favor of a run off election. But the wording of this amendment has
to be made more precise: There is no problem with vote totals ending in a
tie, unless it results in being unable to determine who the winners are (i.e.
in this last election, if the first 3 highest vote getters had the same total,
who cares? It was the 4th and 5th being tied, for the 4th position, that
caused the problem.).
Next, a coin flip is a bad idea, simply because it only helps when there are
only 2 people tied (probability types will bring up how there is a method to
use a coin to fairly break a 3-way tie, but still). Just have a run off
election with as many candidates as are affected. All members are still
eligible to vote, regardless of their [non]participation in the original
election.
If the run off election fails to produce the clear winner(s), then I recommend
throwing it to the sitting board to resolve. Further, I'm not particularly
interested in calling out in the bylaws the method by which the board will
determine the winner(s) - let the board use its collective noggin - that's
what they were elected for in the first place.
|
carson
|
|
response 62 of 139:
|
Dec 19 22:55 UTC 2001 |
I would be in favor of any solution mutually agreed upon by Greg and
Sylvia.
|
richard
|
|
response 63 of 139:
|
Dec 20 01:40 UTC 2001 |
Carson's got it! Just let flem and bhell email, correspond or get together
and decide for themselves how they choose to break the tie. That idea's
so brilliant I wish *I* came up with it! :)
|
keesan
|
|
response 64 of 139:
|
Dec 20 01:48 UTC 2001 |
I have the perfect solution. Let Richard choose the winner and then flem and
bhell won't have to risk getting mad at each other if they can't agree,
instead one of them can be furious at Richard. In fact let's elect Richard
for the board position instead and fly him here every month.
|
janc
|
|
response 65 of 139:
|
Dec 20 05:34 UTC 2001 |
The tied people can certainly resolve the situation by withdrawing (if the
discussion gets so annoying that they both withdraw, then Jeff Kaplan gets
the job). However it is absolutely not their duty to do so.
|
carson
|
|
response 66 of 139:
|
Dec 20 06:54 UTC 2001 |
I would prefer that neither Sylvia nor Greg choose to resolve the present
dilemma in such a manner, although it is certainly their prerogative to do
so. Rather, I would like to see a resolution agreeable to them, whatever
it ends up being.
At the very least, I would like to see what input either might offer. I
believe that, as of this typing, neither has done so.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 67 of 139:
|
Dec 20 08:38 UTC 2001 |
Think we ought to let them know about all this discussions, or just let them
figure it out for themselves? :)
|
remmers
|
|
response 68 of 139:
|
Dec 20 10:48 UTC 2001 |
Let them figure it out for themselves. If they're serious about
being on the board, they should keep up with Coop.
|
jep
|
|
response 69 of 139:
|
Dec 20 14:40 UTC 2001 |
I don't think it would be unkind to point the discussions out to the
candidates. John's right that they should be aware already, because
they should be participating in coop as a matter of course, but it
would hurt nothing to send them an e-mail as well.
The decision about how to break the tie is one for Grex, not for the
candidates. A tie-breaking procedure should arise from this situation
which will fill a void if this happens again in the future.
|
richard
|
|
response 70 of 139:
|
Dec 20 14:48 UTC 2001 |
so what if they do figure it out for themselves, and flem and bhell
decide they simply want to share their seat on the Board and take turns
being a Board member? How could you tell them they cant do that when
technically they were both the fourth highest vote getter for four open
seats.
|
jep
|
|
response 71 of 139:
|
Dec 20 15:36 UTC 2001 |
I would say "I'm sorry, but that isn't allowed by the current by-laws".
|
richard
|
|
response 72 of 139:
|
Dec 20 16:26 UTC 2001 |
#71..Jep, that is simply and flatly incorrect. The Bylaws do not
prohibit more than seven people from being elected. As follows:
" ARTICLE 3: BOARD OF DIRECTORS
a. The Board of Directors (BOD) shall consist of seven individual
members of Grex, and shall include a chairperson, a secretary,
and a treasurer. "
Does that say that the seven individual elected members have to be the
same seven at each meeting? No it doesnt.
As follows:
"ARTICLE 4: ELECTIONS AND TERMS OF OFFICE
a. BOD members shall be elected to two-year terms, that begin
on January 1 of each year. Terms of office shall be
staggered, with 4 board positions being filled beginning in
even-numbered years and 3 in odd-numbered years."
Does that say that more than seven members cant be elected? No it
doesnt. It says 4 board positions must be filled in even numbered
years. It does NOT address, in any way, shape, or form, the question
of whether if multiple members are elected, if they may share a board
position.
If they want to share the seat, there is no basis for telling them they
can't unless there is an amendment added to specifically prohibit that.
|
gull
|
|
response 73 of 139:
|
Dec 20 17:17 UTC 2001 |
It says "the board shall consists of seven individual members." Your
argument only holds water if we assume the board does not exist except when
it meets.
|
richard
|
|
response 74 of 139:
|
Dec 20 18:08 UTC 2001 |
the board shall always consist of seven individual members. but it doesnt
say anything about more than seven members being elected and eligible to
serve and rotating service. both flem and bhell finished fourth in
an election where the top four vote getters were elected. Therefore they
both have been elected, and there shouldnt be objections if they agree
to a solution whereby they both have a chance to serve. I cant believe
anyone would have a problem with that. Give them both a chance.
|