|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 139 responses total. |
glenda
|
|
response 75 of 139:
| 
Dec 20 18:42 UTC 2001 |
Just go and try that kind of nonsense with any other elected position anywhere
and see how far you get. I'd like the see it tried with a Congressional seat.
|
keesan
|
|
response 76 of 139:
|
Dec 20 19:12 UTC 2001 |
How are ties for Congressional Seats resolved?
|
richard
|
|
response 77 of 139:
|
Dec 20 19:15 UTC 2001 |
#75..glenda, why is it "nonsense"...give me the explanation. This isnt
anywhere else, this is grex, and on grex there's no reason to discourage
people from serving. Having an extra elected member who can vote when
other members arent available, can be a big plus for Grex. It absolutely
can't hurt. And since the bylaws dont specifically prohibit it, you have
no basis for calling it "nonsense" Explain why you think it so...
Explain why its so much more important to force a choice between these two
and have one of them declared the loser. This can be a win win situation.
I really dont see the real objection.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 78 of 139:
|
Dec 20 19:19 UTC 2001 |
richard, read very carefully, s-l-o-w-l-y if necessary: The number is
7. S-E-V-E-N. Seven *elected* board members. Not 12 lords a-leaping.
Concentrate on that. Put crazy eights out of your mind...
|
richard
|
|
response 79 of 139:
|
Dec 20 19:45 UTC 2001 |
albaugh, go re-read the bylaws. it does NOT say seven "elected" board
members. It says the board shall be seven "individual" members. That
is a very clear distinction. It means the bylaws do not...do NOT, preclude
the possibility of electing more than seven individuals to be available
to fill the seven positions.
The bylaws say that four board positions be filled in even numbered years,
and three in odd years. But nothing there says how many or how few can be
elected to be eligible to fill those positions. Normally you elect one
person to fill one position, but that doesnt mean there's anything that
says you cant let two people fill one position if they wish to rotate.
Dont assume what the bylaws say. Go read them.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 80 of 139:
|
Dec 20 20:05 UTC 2001 |
grex needs a virtual "richard wall" for us to band our heads on...
|
jep
|
|
response 81 of 139:
|
Dec 20 20:14 UTC 2001 |
Richard, in what respect is/are two people sharing a Board seat "one
individual member"? I assert that situation does not describe "one
individual member", it describes some other situation, by common usage
of the English language. Please explain what you think those words
mean, and how they can be construed to support what you're suggesting.
|
jep
|
|
response 82 of 139:
|
Dec 20 20:15 UTC 2001 |
Further, I assert Grex isn't going to stretch the by-laws to do what
you suggest. It's an irrelevant suggestion. It's not going to happen.
|
richard
|
|
response 83 of 139:
|
Dec 20 20:47 UTC 2001 |
#80..it says the board shall consist of "seven individual members", but
it does not say that it has to be the SAME seven individual members at
each meeting. My reading of it is that so long as the board always consists
of seven individual, elected, board members, that is all that the
bylaws stipulate. the bylaws dont say there can't be more than seven
people elected.
This is presumably a one-time situation. The bylaws dont say what to do
in a tie. Presumably this will now be addressed. But for this particular
election, there are two people who finished fourth in a race with four
open positions. If you have a coin toss, or a runoff, you penalize one
of them for no reason. They both won. Let them both serve.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 84 of 139:
|
Dec 20 20:58 UTC 2001 |
Wow, this is what I get for allowing vacation to disrupt my grexing for
three days. This item has exploded! As I mentioned in a posting on
Monday, I do not necessarily think it is my place as a candidate to
determine how this is solved. However, as a member, I have a couple of
observations.
1.Having either Greg or myself "bow out" in favor the other would not
truly reflect the wishes of the membership, as the votes towards the
individual that stepped down are in a sense discounted.
2.Coin toss essentially does the same thing. While a quick and
efficient means of deciding this issue, it in a way puts the final
decision in the hands of the board, even though the selection is still
based upon chance.
3.Which leaves, I believe, the option of a run-off. If the voting
public consists of those who were eligible to vote by the inital cut-
off period, there's no risk of the vote being tainted that way. NOn-
members can still vote and they won't count per usual. No sense in
creating a new program, just use the old one, right? Everyone would
have the opportunity to make their choice and the issue of member
enfranchisement won't need to be addressed at all.
Greg and I are both adults and can handle losing to the other. I
personally don't think that there would be any hard feelings, and the
idea of a runoff certainly ensure that there would not be. Life is
certainly to short to get even remotely upset over this, so long as
it's handled in the right manner, right?
|
keesan
|
|
response 85 of 139:
|
Dec 20 21:34 UTC 2001 |
Well put, but that still leaves grex all those decisions to make about who
gets to vote and when......
Richard, are you perhaps interpreting things to mean that the board only
exists during the two hours a month that it is meeting? And that it only
consists of whoever of the people elected happened to show up that month?
I think other people consider the board to exist full time, which means that
it consists of all people elected to serve on it. The 'individual' specifies
that you cannot have a corporate member serving, not that the numbers have
to add up to seven whole persons one of whom can be half of two persons.
|
richard
|
|
response 86 of 139:
|
Dec 20 22:01 UTC 2001 |
keesan thats a good point. I guess I was generally considering that
the board normally only functions during meetings. but that wouldnt
preclude bhell and flem just alternating entire months as a board
member would it? look, if both of them agree to a runoff, then the
objections to a runoff are moot. this was just an idea to try and
satisfy both of them if nothing else
|
remmers
|
|
response 87 of 139:
|
Dec 20 22:03 UTC 2001 |
Re #84: As far as the voting software is concerned, it's just as
easy to count one set of people's votes as another.
I think Sindi's right about what board membership means. Folks
should keep in mind that Cyberspace Communications is a Michigan
Corporation, and board membership has legal standing.
|
gull
|
|
response 88 of 139:
|
Dec 20 22:26 UTC 2001 |
Re #79: I'd say eight people only counts as seven individuals if two of
them are siamese twins...
I also don't think that arguing that something is okay because the
bylaws don't specifically forbid it is a good technique. I think
richard's reading clearly violates the spirit of the rule. If you got
ten ordinary people together, showed them that rule, and asked them
whether it allowed for eight people to be elected to the board, I doubt
any of them would say 'yes'.
At this point I'm going to shut up about the subject. I'm not going to
convince richard, and I haven't seen anyone else agree with him about
this.
|
keesan
|
|
response 89 of 139:
|
Dec 21 01:51 UTC 2001 |
I think Richard is now trying to say that if you elect board members for a
year, two of them can split the year between them by alternating months.
I know he is trying to come up with a solution that is as fair as possible
but this one does not seem to be one that anyone else favors. It could get
awkward, for instance, if the two half-members happened to disagree on some
subject and asked for a revote every month. Or if one of them was chosen to
be an officer and the other one did not want to be an officer, in which case
there were be, for instance, only half a secretary (or a whole secretary half
the time). I could probably come up with other reasons why it would not work
and why therefore two half-persons are not equivalent to a whole person. Even
Siamese twins might not agree on everything (and it might be difficult for
one of them to attend without the other).
Is the next step to vote on whether or not to vote (as opposed to
tossing a coin?) or does there seem to be agreement on the need for a revote?.
|
aruba
|
|
response 90 of 139:
|
Dec 21 02:39 UTC 2001 |
I sent this proposal to everyone on the board:
I propose a runoff just between flem and bhelliom. I think we should vote
for a period of 15 days, beginning as soon as we have the agreement of a
majority of the board. I think eligibility should be the same as for any
vote: anyone who has paid for at least 3 consecutive months of membership
which overlap with any part of the voting period should be eligible to
vote.
I asked for people to vote yea or nay.
|
mary
|
|
response 91 of 139:
|
Dec 21 02:43 UTC 2001 |
Nice way to move this along, Mark. Thanks.
|
remmers
|
|
response 92 of 139:
|
Dec 21 13:32 UTC 2001 |
Doing it as proposed in #90 is fine with me. Configuring the
vote program for the runoff will take just a few minutes, and
as soon as I get the go-ahead from the Powers That Be, I'll do
it.
|
gull
|
|
response 93 of 139:
|
Dec 21 17:18 UTC 2001 |
I agree with #90. I see no reason to make it any more complicated than
that.
|
richard
|
|
response 94 of 139:
|
Dec 21 19:05 UTC 2001 |
so in other words its possible that someone who was ineligible to vote
in the original election could be eligible to vote in the runoff? thats not
the way runoffs are supposed to work.
|
keesan
|
|
response 95 of 139:
|
Dec 21 19:12 UTC 2001 |
Perhaps it could instead be called a reelection?
|
albaugh
|
|
response 96 of 139:
|
Dec 21 21:12 UTC 2001 |
Who died and made *you* king, richard? And you're dead wrong: Eligibility
to vote is constantly changing, in the real world. It may take some amount
of time of established residency (e.g. 30 days) in a new location to make one
eligible to vote there, but that doesn't preclude the person obtaining the
new eligibility from voting in a subsequent runoff election, if it takes "that
long" to set it up.
Where you get your ideas from is a mystery...
|
richard
|
|
response 97 of 139:
|
Dec 21 21:38 UTC 2001 |
albaugh, this is a grex election, not a public office election. different
clubs have different rules. Some places that have runoffs-- again we're
talking clubs, organizations, corporate boards-- DO limit participation
to those who voted in the initial election. This is because they dont
consider the runoff a new election, but rather an attempt to finish the
preceding one. Also some places where the membership electorate is
scattered or its elections are difficult to set up or administer, runoffs
are far less desireable and the powers that be may seek to limit
participation.
its all whether the bylaws or constitutions specify it. grex's bylaws
dont say either way. The board can decide who can or should vote in a
runoff. I really dont think it matters in this case, so may as well let
everyone eligible now vote.
|
other
|
|
response 98 of 139:
|
Dec 21 23:44 UTC 2001 |
Tracking the changes in voter eligibility between elections is so useless
and so insignificant that it makes no sense whatever to be concerned with
a subtly different voting population in a runoff election than that in
the original election.
richard, if you want it to matter, then propose a formal policy. I have
no further interest, nor will I participate, in purely theoretical
discussion of such crap. I have far too much respect for the value of my
time.
|
richard
|
|
response 99 of 139:
|
Dec 22 07:25 UTC 2001 |
Other, Im sorry but you are out of line referring to anything Ive
suggested as "crap" I have made honest suggestions as to how to
resolve this. I am participating as honestly and openly as you are. I
would never call any of your ideas "crap" In fact I never said my
ideas were better than anybody else's. Yet you seem to be mean
spirited and completely dismissive. I fail to see how one makes a good
board member with that attitude. You disagree with something someone
says, you say so. You dont call it crap or any other derogatory
metaphor. It demeans the entire debate going on here. Are you really
that mean or are you simply unable to accept that people can present
ideas you completely disagree with and actually be well intended?
|