|
Grex > Coop9 > #13: Nominations for the Board of Directors |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
remmers
|
|
Nominations for the Board of Directors
| 
Oct 20 15:48 UTC 1996 |
Nominations are now open for the Cyberspace Communications, Inc.
Board of Directors. In accordance with Article 4, Section d of the
Bylaws, nominations will close on November 15 and an online election
held December 1 through December 15. Terms of office begin on January
1, 1997, and are two years in length. Three seats are up for election
this time around.
Any current member of Grex who has paid at least 3 months' membership
dues is eligible to run for and serve on the Board unless they are
currently serving and are completing the second of two consecutive
terms. (People in the latter group are eligible to run again in
next year's election if they are still members at that time.)
The terms of four Board members have one more year to run: Mark
Conger (aruba), Scott Helmke (scott), Rob Henderson (robh), and
Misti Tucker (mta).
The three Board members whose terms end this December 31st are
Steve Gibbard (scg), Valerie Mates (popcorn), and Steve Weiss (srw).
Steve Weiss is not eligible to run because he will have completed
two consecutive terms. The other two incumbents whose terms are
ending are eligible to run for re-election.
Use this item to make nominations. To see the current membership list,
type
!members | more
at the next prompt. It is suggested that you check that a potential
nominee is eligible and is willing to serve before nominating them.
The Bylaws are posted in item 2 of this conference and enumerate the
duties of directors.
|
| 246 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 1 of 246:
|
Oct 20 16:37 UTC 1996 |
Thanks for posting this, John. I was sure that it was coming up, but couldn't
remember to ask when.
Nominate Mary Remmers (chelsea).
|
scg
|
|
response 2 of 246:
|
Oct 20 16:59 UTC 1996 |
I nominate Valerie Mates (popcorn).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 3 of 246:
|
Oct 20 17:14 UTC 1996 |
I nominate Jan Wolter (janc), Steve Gibbard (scg), and Dan Gryniewicz (dang).
I accept Steve's nomination of me.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 246:
|
Oct 20 17:16 UTC 1996 |
(Did Mary actually accept a nomination to run for the board? Wow!
Somehow I wouldn't have expected that.)
|
janc
|
|
response 5 of 246:
|
Oct 20 17:25 UTC 1996 |
I accept Valerie's nomination of me.
I haven't seen an accemptance from Mary yet.
|
scg
|
|
response 6 of 246:
|
Oct 20 18:32 UTC 1996 |
I accept Valerie's nomination of me. Thanks, Valerie.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 246:
|
Oct 20 18:56 UTC 1996 |
I think anyone currently on staff should abstain this time around for
running for the Board. There is too high a percentage of staff members
on the board, and regular users have a distinct disadvantage when it
comes to running against staffers for the board. It is a name
recognition thing. As it stands, the same people currently on the board
who are also on staff are going to get re-elected even if perfectly good
people who are regular users decide to run. There are only so many
members who are even going to vote, and the ones that are will vote for
the names they know rather than using more objective criteria.
As things stand, half of staff is going to be on the board for another
year anyway. Why not the rest of you baffers abstain and let other
people have a chance to serve? It may not seem fair but it also isnt
fair for certain people to have an institutional advantage in running
year after year. I think Grex would be a stronger place if more people
interested in getting involved had the opportunity. But the fact is
that certain people's names being on the ballot at all actually
effectively denies folks these opportunities.
|
scg
|
|
response 8 of 246:
|
Oct 20 19:53 UTC 1996 |
If the members don't want staff people on the board, they won't vote for staff
people. Thos of us staffers who are running are letting the members to chose
staffers if they want to.
|
scott
|
|
response 9 of 246:
|
Oct 20 20:15 UTC 1996 |
Kerouac, our members are not idiots.
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 10 of 246:
|
Oct 20 20:42 UTC 1996 |
The bylaw that keeps people from serving more than two consecutive terms seems
to handle kerouac's objection, even if we were idiots ;-).
|
popcorn
|
|
response 11 of 246:
|
Oct 20 21:40 UTC 1996 |
I nominate Nathaniel Siddall, login nsiddall.
|
bruin
|
|
response 12 of 246:
|
Oct 20 22:16 UTC 1996 |
I nominate login qt314 for the Grex Board of Directors.
|
dang
|
|
response 13 of 246:
|
Oct 20 22:32 UTC 1996 |
I accept Valerie's nomination. Thanks. :)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 14 of 246:
|
Oct 21 00:06 UTC 1996 |
Oh -- Nat isn't a member. I nominate him conditionally based on him becoming
one, since the bylaws specify that board members need to be members of Grex.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 15 of 246:
|
Oct 21 01:43 UTC 1996 |
I accept being nominated. Thanks, Scott.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 16 of 246:
|
Oct 21 05:27 UTC 1996 |
<valerie faints> (I've been trying to nominate Mary for *years*, but she
always declines) Wow!
|
ryan1
|
|
response 17 of 246:
|
Oct 22 01:49 UTC 1996 |
I nominate Rob (robh) Henderson (unless he doesn't accept, or need the
nomination).
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 246:
|
Oct 22 06:10 UTC 1996 |
Rob is already on the board, and will be for at least another year.
|
robh
|
|
response 19 of 246:
|
Oct 22 06:59 UTC 1996 |
<robh cannot accept, but thanks ryan1 anyway, and suggests that next
time ryan1 ask him first >8) >
|
dang
|
|
response 20 of 246:
|
Oct 22 17:43 UTC 1996 |
So far, accepted nominations are:
popcorn
janc
scg
dang
chelsea
|
mta
|
|
response 21 of 246:
|
Oct 22 18:36 UTC 1996 |
I nominate void.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 22 of 246:
|
Oct 22 20:01 UTC 1996 |
The two year rule would normally solve this problem, but the
staff is so large that even when a staffer cant run, there is
always another staffer to take their place. SRW cant run, but
Valerie can. Next year, Valerie wont be able to run, but SRW
will. This is becoming a rather obvious cycle. The same
people vote for the same people every year. This prevents a
healthy turnover on the board, and could potentially lead to
board/staff becoming more institutionally cut regular users.
What I think is that three of the seven board seats should be
designated "staff" seats, and that staff only should be
allowed to run for them. The other four should be "at large"
seats which only regular users can run for. This would
ensure that both staff and regular users have a balanced
presence on the board. It just doesnt look good when the 10
or 11 staff members rotate six of the seven board seats among
themselves at all times. Which is basically the case.
|
ryan1
|
|
response 23 of 246:
|
Oct 22 20:02 UTC 1996 |
Yeah, I said void it if he did not *need* a nomination :) I don't quite
understand this process yet :)
|
robh
|
|
response 24 of 246:
|
Oct 22 21:03 UTC 1996 |
Re 22 - I guess I have to repeat the obvious, which has been stated
several times already: If people don't *want* staff members on the
Board, they shouldn't *vote* for them. I don't think kerouac has
made any kind of response to that particular suggestion. Why should
our members be denied the chance to vote for people they want to serve
on the Board, just because those people have proven that they can
serve on staff?
|