|
Grex > Oldcoop > #25: Nominations for the 2004 Grex Board of Directors | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 225 responses total. |
bhoward
|
|
response 89 of 225:
| 
Nov 10 23:52 UTC 2003 |
Just a quick question for future reference (as I have not finished reading
through the grex charter/bylaws/amendment history)...
Is physical presence a formal requirement of board membership? If not
a formal requirement, is it a practical necessity in order to contribute
meaningfully as a board member or have any board members ever served
from afar?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 90 of 225:
|
Nov 11 00:59 UTC 2003 |
Physical presence is no longer required for service on the Board
of Directors. A membership vote last year answered this question.
The question voted on allowed participartion over a speaker 'phone.
No one has yet served from afar.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 91 of 225:
|
Nov 11 01:51 UTC 2003 |
Really? Cool! I've been looking for a way to get more involved with
contributing to grex.
I'd like to formally nominate myself to run for one of the open BOD
positions.
|
naftee
|
|
response 92 of 225:
|
Nov 11 04:51 UTC 2003 |
I second that nomination. I think Bruce Howard would be an excellent addition
to the GreX B0D and encourage everyone to vote for him.
|
remmers
|
|
response 93 of 225:
|
Nov 11 11:30 UTC 2003 |
Current nominees (with those who've accepted marked with a *):
cmcgee
* jp2
* kip
* glenda
* mary
tod
polygon
* slynne
* bhelliom
krj
naftee
srw
* bhoward
Seven candidates at this point for four open slots. It's shaping
up to be a competitive election.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 94 of 225:
|
Nov 11 15:36 UTC 2003 |
Just a quick question - is there a limit to the number of people who can be
on board but not physically present at board meetings? If you have a limit
of 1, you have bhoward and jp2 running for that position. So only one of these
people can be voted to board.
|
aruba
|
|
response 95 of 225:
|
Nov 11 16:23 UTC 2003 |
There is not a limit. Technical arrangements may get tricky with more than
one remote attendee, but I think we can work it out.
|
naftee
|
|
response 96 of 225:
|
Nov 11 16:49 UTC 2003 |
re 93 I'm not eligible to run for the board.
|
remmers
|
|
response 97 of 225:
|
Nov 11 17:06 UTC 2003 |
Because...?
|
carson
|
|
response 98 of 225:
|
Nov 11 19:12 UTC 2003 |
("!members")
(there's also likely the issue of being a non-resident of the USA.
I'm not compelled to look up the relevant text.)
|
glenda
|
|
response 99 of 225:
|
Nov 11 20:09 UTC 2003 |
Add that he is underage.
|
jp2
|
|
response 100 of 225:
|
Nov 11 21:18 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
naftee
|
|
response 101 of 225:
|
Nov 11 22:49 UTC 2003 |
Unfourtunately, I haven't paid for membership. Due to the rather precarious
state of GreX accounts at the moment, I'm not really compelled to become one
at the moment.
|
maximuzs
|
|
response 102 of 225:
|
Nov 12 07:35 UTC 2003 |
Although I have not been a paid member myself, I owould love to participate
in thie election. If all possible, I nominate myself. I have sused to run
a non-profit organization and am film. with fed. laws regarding tax issues.
thank you for your time.
|
remmers
|
|
response 103 of 225:
|
Nov 12 12:11 UTC 2003 |
Jp2 is correct - a board of directors of a Michigan corporation
can have a limited number of members who are under 18, as long as
they are at least 16. I think the "limited number" might be 1.
This is due to fairly recent changes in Michigan law.
|
remmers
|
|
response 104 of 225:
|
Nov 12 13:40 UTC 2003 |
Re #95: Timing issues could be tricky as well if the remote member
is in a time zone significantly distant from Ann Arbor.
|
jp2
|
|
response 105 of 225:
|
Nov 12 14:40 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 106 of 225:
|
Nov 12 14:46 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
bhoward
|
|
response 107 of 225:
|
Nov 12 15:34 UTC 2003 |
John, it depends a bit on the distance and whether they are based to
the right or left of Ann Arbor.
Someone based in the UK would probably have a fair amount of difficulty
attending from afar unless they were a night person - a meeting held
~19:00 EST is around midnight in the UK depending on time of year.
On the other hand, 19:00 EST is more like 08:00 or 09:00 in Tokyo which
for me is actually quite a manageable time.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 108 of 225:
|
Nov 12 16:07 UTC 2003 |
Again, you would expect the nominee to take the time difference into
consideration in deciding whether he wants to run. For me, an 8:00 am
time for a meeting would not work, but a midnight time is definitely
more manageable :)
My point is it's the nominee's call to make, not the board's. Of
course, a responsible person would decline the nomination if the time
did not work for him.
|
richard
|
|
response 109 of 225:
|
Nov 13 19:32 UTC 2003 |
cmon, nominations close on saturday, there are seven nominees for four
slots..surely a couple of more people want to run so there can at least be
twice as many nominees as there are open seats
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 110 of 225:
|
Nov 13 21:15 UTC 2003 |
Why don't you run?
|
gelinas
|
|
response 111 of 225:
|
Nov 13 21:30 UTC 2003 |
(I'm hoping C. S. McGee will consent to to her nomination.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 112 of 225:
|
Nov 13 23:47 UTC 2003 |
(Me too, since I nominated her.)
Deadlines:
November 15: Last day to place names into nomination.
November 30: Last day for a nominee to accept (and acquire
membership status, if they're not already a member).
|
remmers
|
|
response 113 of 225:
|
Nov 17 12:39 UTC 2003 |
November 15 has passed, so no new names may be placed in nomination.
Any nominee who has not yet accepted has through November 30 to do so.
I've emailed cmcgee, tod, polygon, krj, and srw alerting them to this.
|