November BoD

Nov 5 06:09 UTC 2001

Sorry I'm running late on this....when posting up reminders I forgot the most
important one of all.

Next BoD Meeting!  Wednesday, November 7 at 7:30 p.m. at Zing's Next Door.

1. Bang Gavel
2. Chair
3. Treasurer
4. Publicity
5. Staff
6. Scribbled Log
7. New Business
8. Next Meeting
9. Bang Gavel

Have At!

response 2 of 43:

Nov 5 15:44 UTC 2001

Another item:  Ballot eligibility in the upcoming Board election.

There's one declared candidate who appears unlikely to satisfy the
"able to attend face-to-face meetings" requirement of the bylaws.
Since I'm the election administrator and will be making up the
ballot, I'd like a ruling from the board on whether such folks are
eligible to run.

I always check with the treasurer just before the election starts
to make sure all the candidates are current members.  The issue of
satisfying the attendance requirement hasn't come up before, and
I think the board needs to rule on how that should be handled.

response 4 of 43:

Nov 5 16:20 UTC 2001

unless a candidate comes out and states flatly that he wont be able
to physically attend any meetings, then I guess you have to take that
candidate's candidacy at face value until such time as he is elected
and actually doesnt attend the meetings.  And once he misses physically
attending the requisite number of meetings, he'd be removed.  Unless jp2
states flat out he wont physically attend any meetings, I dont see that
disqualifying im from the ballot even if he isnt intending to physically
attend any.

response 12 of 43:

Nov 5 19:20 UTC 2001

John in #2 had asked about "eligibility".  My reading of the bylaws is
that such people should be eligible to run.  There is in fact nothing in
the bylaws that state where meetings should be held, or that all board
members necessarily need to attend all meetings.  It's the
responsibility of the board president to select a time & location that
will be convenient to as many members as possible, and it's then up to
members to make that if possible.  It's clearly up to the membership at
large to select people for the board that will do the best job possible,
which would presumably include the ability to attend board meetings on a
regular basis.  It's up to candidates who live far away to explain if or
how they would fulfill their obligation to attend board meetings ftf.
Presumably, if we had a board member who lived in England, but commuted
to Michigan on a monthly basis, it would be feasible to schedule
meetings, and such a person might be a reasonable candidate.

The bylaws actually provide for "special" meetings in addition to the
regular meetings, which apparently do not need to be ftf - it seems
likely that could be done via telephone conference calls,
videoconferencing, or carrier pigeons.  If we had an especially valuable
board member who couldn't attend regular meetings ftf, presumably we
could have regular "special" meetings with that person, to get the
benefit of that person's input, perhaps followed by regular ftf meetings
which would merely do the minimal necessary to satisfy the state.

I think the simple answer is, if Jamie pays his dues he's eligible just
like any other member, and if he's elected, the incoming board will need
to decide if and how they can facilitate his attending board meetings.
If it turns out he can't attend meetings ftf, then the rest of the board
might or might not choose to hold additional special meetings to involve
him.  If the membership feels that whatever the board does isn't
adequate, it could vote to change the bylaws to permit members to attend
meetings remotely, rather than being physically present.  Unless the
board or membership feel this is important to solve now, nearly all of
this can be postponed until when and if Jamie is elected.

response 14 of 43:

Nov 5 23:07 UTC 2001

In resp:6, jp2 said that he would not be able to attend many regular 
board meetings.  Not all voters will read this item or other places 
where that fact is stated.  I hope that he will include that important 
bit of information about his candidacy in his official campaign 
statement that appears on the ballot.  

response 16 of 43:

Nov 6 01:19 UTC 2001

I suppose an option to consider would be to list the state each
candidate resides in on the ballot.  This hasn't been an issue before,
so I don't know that this is a good reason, but if there's serious
reason to think that there are actually voters who (a) won't have
figured this out, and (b) are going to be able to figure out the
resulting implications.

response 20 of 43:

Nov 6 02:02 UTC 2001

And to further encourage people to run who might be reluctant to make a 
two year committment, the two "at large" seats can offer the added 
attraction of a one year instead of two year term.

response 22 of 43:

Nov 6 03:35 UTC 2001

I'm all for killing the scribbled log item on the adgenda...I sure as hell
don't feel like flogging that dead horse again.  I was afraid that if I
didn't add it, I'd end up having to anyway.

So, since popular vote seems to decree it (thank god!!!)

1. Bang Gavel
2. Chair
3. Treasurer
4. Publicity
5. Staff
6. Purchase of Pentium
7. Ballot Elegibility
8. New Business
9. Next Meeting
10. Bang Gavel

response 24 of 43:

Nov 6 03:52 UTC 2001

I don't see a need to discuss ballot eligibility:  From everything I've seen,
all who have accepted are eligible.  I also don't see a need to require anyone
to include a statement on their intention or ability to attend Board meetings.
Voters should be sufficiently informed.  If they aren't, well, welcome to The
Real World.