In the aftermath of the last Board election, there was some speculation that people may have run simply so that I wouldn't be elected. While I did intend intend to run, I anticipated the aforementioned possibility, and so decided not to announce my candidacy until the last minute. However, I was errantly put on the list of people who had accepted their nominations by John Remmers, and as such lost any possible advantage. I was put on the list of people to vote for without ever having accepted a nomination. Since this completely invalidates the results, I demand a new election.25 responses total.
I don't demand a new election, however I do demand that we do our best to support David Hoffman's BoD campaign.
In the last election, I had five votes and cross, the candidate awarded a seat who had the least number of votes, had ten. I believe it's quite possible that, if fewer people had run, which very likely could have happened if John Remmers didn't errantly announce my candidacy, I would have been elected. Also, as Nate pointed out to me, the results of the non-member vote were never made public, even though this has traditionally been done for years. Is it still possible to post them, or has the data been lost?
Also, just to ensure that everyone understands that Mr. Remmers's fallacious announcement may very well have affected the results of the election, no fewer than FIVE people became candidates after it was made.
Also: even if you think this may not have changed the fact that I didn't win a seat, if the announcement did indeed cause more people to run, it inarguable took votes from OTHER candidates. In either case, the results are completely inmvalid.
In summary, David's complaint is that people were able to express their opinion by voting against him.
Anyone who read what I said would realize that's a complete misconstrual of my argument.
Anyway, with slight embarrassment at turning this item into a bunch of my own responses, rather than cohesive posts, I must say that I believe it is absolutely vital to the legitimacy of the corportation that it holds fair elections.
re #6: I think #5 is a fair characterization of your position.
I do not understand how you came to that conclusion. Please explain.
After you were added to the list of candidates, at least one candidate decided NOT to run, so your thesis would seem to be disproved.
What are you talking about? Five minus one is still four, which is a large number of candidates for such an election, and is certainly enough to have effected the results. One person running would have been enough.
I believe scholar has brought up excellent points in this item, and agree that there should be a complete board election instead of a partial one to replace john remmers. i'd also be interested in seeing the results of the non-member vote.
(unlucky)
i believe scholar would be an excellet board member, as well.
Re. 10: Also, Todd has said publicalyl on several occasions that he dropped out because of all the extra people who hadn't used Grex in months who decided to run for the board all of a sudden. Even if that wasn't the reason he dropped out, you could hardly use that as proof that the erroneous declaration didn't completely fuck up the election. I don't think you're an intelligent man, Gel, and I haven't since you started having a fit over posting parts of /etc/passwd files, claiming they were a breach of security, which is short witted bunk. E.
re #10 I decided not to run when I saw mdw and janc running for no reason other than to dilute cross and scholar's possibility of getting on the board. I felt dropping out would increase the chances of actual coop cf participants getting on board instead of the same old stale names that had come out of hiding for whatever reason.
I was happy to see that Marcus' candidacy was not successful, as I, too, thought it was not motivated by a sincere interest in becoming re-engaged with Grex but by an intention to block other people from joining the board.
resp:14 Why?
Hm. It appears that I mistakenly listed scholar as having accepted the nomination in response 31 of the nominations item (resp:236,31), posted on November 10. It was an unintentional mistake, but definitely my fault, and I apologize. Since the error was made fully 20 days before the election started, and acceptances are required to be made publicly in the item, I'm surprised that nobody caught it. But I guess those things happen. By the way, I haven't talked to Marcus and can't comment on his reasons for running, but having served with Jan on the board for the past year, I think resp:16 is full of it as far as its characterization of janc's motives are concerned.
(In #19, the link to the erroneous response should be resp:370,31 .)
I have to agree with remmers regarding janc's motives. I mean, he has been on the board for a while now and was running for re-election. He has been a very valuable member of the board too, fwiw.
Absolutely.
I have to disagree with you both (slynne and remmers.) I don't see janc rolling up his sleeves and engaging us here in this conference. That alone was how I drew my conclusion in #16. You can say I'm full of it because he's been there on the board but to me if you're not willing to participate regularly in coop cf then what's the point of running? Who does that represent other than one's self?
Jan is on the board?
re #24 Grex Board of Directors Meeting: January 23, 2007 Attending: Mark Conger*, Dan Cross*, Lynne Fremont*, Joe Gelinas, Bruce Howard*, Larry Kestenbaum*, Jan Wolter* * = board member
You have several choices: