|
Grex > Coop9 > #21: Agenda for December 18, 1996 Grex Board meeting (7:30 pm) | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scott
|
|
Agenda for December 18, 1996 Grex Board meeting (7:30 pm)
| 
Dec 6 19:59 UTC 1996 |
Agenda for 12/18/96 Board Meeting
1. Initial Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
2. Treasurer's Report - aruba 5 minutes
3. Computer Rehabilitation Committee - scott 5 minutes
4. Publicity Committee - mta 5 minutes
5. Technical Committee - STeve 20 minutes
6. Board Election Results - all 20 minutes
10. Election of 1997 Board Officers - all 20 minutes
11. ISDN Connection 20 minutes
12. New Business - all ???
13. Final Gavel Pounding - scott < 1 minute
We'll most likely be meeting at ITI as usual, but since I don't have
confirmation on that yet, I'm not saying it yet. ;)
|
| 57 responses total. |
kerouac
|
|
response 1 of 57:
|
Dec 6 22:08 UTC 1996 |
wait a minute, it takes scott a whole minute to pound the gavel?
lets cut that back to thirty or forty seconds shall we? :)
|
arthurp
|
|
response 2 of 57:
|
Dec 7 03:08 UTC 1996 |
'<' means less than.
|
dang
|
|
response 3 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:11 UTC 1996 |
Question: Suppose I am elected to the board. Suppose, for one reason or
another, I can't make it to the December 18 board meeting. (I'm not on the
board until january, so I don't *need* to be there) The Board Officers
election proceeds without me. How do I fit into that election? Shouldn't
the election of board officers take place once those potential officers can
vote?
|
popcorn
|
|
response 4 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:23 UTC 1996 |
In the past we've held off on electing board officers until everybody from
the new board is present. Generally if that happens at the December meeting,
we've gone ahead and elected officers for the next year. Rane objected
strongly to that, but most other people have seemed to feel it's OK to choose
the next year's officers at the December meeting, so long as the new board
members are all there.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 5 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:42 UTC 1996 |
There's something funky about that: Why would a board that may contain lame
duck members vote for the officers of the new board? The new board, after
it's "taken office", should vote for its officers then. Being present doesn't
mean anything - it's who is "legally" able to cast a vote for officers.
Giving that right to lame duck members but not newly-elected members seems
strange to me. Wait for the January meeting, or at least until Jan. 1...
|
kerouac
|
|
response 6 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:43 UTC 1996 |
#4...but it is the new board that elects the officers for the new year and
and terms of the new board members dont start until the first of the year
right?
If they have not taken office, they shouldnt be able to vote and it
would be unethical for the previous board members whose terms are about to
expire
to vote for the new officers. have to agree with rcurl here.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 7 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:45 UTC 1996 |
#5 slipped in.
legally all the board action of the last year could be nullified by a
claim that the board officers were not properly elected.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 57:
|
Dec 7 21:49 UTC 1996 |
It's kind of moot, since Valerie's recollection of history is
incorrect. The officers have never been selected in December;
we've always waited until the new board has been officially
seated in January. There was a lengthy *discussion* of this
issue at last December's meeting, but the decision was to wait
until January to select officers despite the fact that all the
board-electees were present at the December meeting.
(Type the !minutes command and select 1995-12-20 to read all
about it...)
I think it's best to wait until the new board takes office too.
|
robh
|
|
response 9 of 57:
|
Dec 8 00:40 UTC 1996 |
Yep, my memory jibes with remmers'. I know we discussed offices
last December in an informal "who wouldn't run away screaming at
the thought of being Treasurer" kind of way, but we didn't have
the official election of officers until January.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 57:
|
Dec 8 01:43 UTC 1996 |
Apologize, Valerie... 8^}
(Though I *would* have objected strongly.....)
|
scg
|
|
response 11 of 57:
|
Dec 8 04:00 UTC 1996 |
Certainly the officers have been elected in January (or maybe it even went
until februrary two years ago) the last two years. I'm not sure about before
that. We did have a lot of discussion of it in December last year, but notno
vote was taken.
|
scott
|
|
response 12 of 57:
|
Dec 8 12:52 UTC 1996 |
At any rate, the lame duck Board members would *not* participate in choosing
next year's officers. I never said they would.
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 57:
|
Dec 8 13:09 UTC 1996 |
Would they participate in deciding whether the selection was
done in December or not? :)
|
scott
|
|
response 14 of 57:
|
Dec 8 15:15 UTC 1996 |
The current Board may agree to allow the discussion to take place.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 57:
|
Dec 8 17:28 UTC 1996 |
Anyone - if recognized - can speak at a board meeting. The situation is
that the nominees are present, but the current board selects the next
meeting date. It is eminently collegiate to seek the participation of
the nominees in that decision.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 57:
|
Dec 8 23:24 UTC 1996 |
I stopped being collegiate in 1963.
|
tsty
|
|
response 17 of 57:
|
Dec 9 05:06 UTC 1996 |
<massive pun stifled ....>
umm, only an "oops" is suggested, imo.
we all "oops" now andthen.
after the new board is seated is a better time for internal elections.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 57:
|
Dec 9 07:29 UTC 1996 |
College 3. A body of associates or colleagues: collegiate pertaining to,
likeor conducted like, or connected with a college.... (see College 3...).
I certainly hope you have not stopped being collegiate, John.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 19 of 57:
|
Dec 9 08:59 UTC 1996 |
No, I am *not* mistaken. Look at the minutes of the 12-21-1993 board meeting,
for an example of a board meeting where we elected the next year's officers.
Here's an excerpt:
----- start here -----
Item 56. Minutes of the Dec. 21, 1993 Board of Directors Meeting
John H. Remmers (remmers) Tue, Dec 21, 1993 (21:24).
...
Board officer selection:
As all members of the 1994 Board of Directors were in attendance, it
was decided appropriate that those individuals should select the board
officers for the coming year at tonight's meeting.
STeve Andre and Steve Weiss were nominated for chair. In a secret
ballot vote, Steve Weiss was the winner.
The current treasurer and secretary, Dan Romanchik and John Remmers,
respectively, were the sole nominees for those offices and were
re-elected by acclaimation.
----- end here -----
Re back-there: The new board would elect the officers for the next year.
The outgoing lame duck board members don't vote.
I can't believe how hide-bound folks are becoming. What difference does it
make if the newly elected board members vote for officers before or after
the first day of 1997? If the members elect someone to the board, that
means that the members want this person to be on the board and vote on things.
(Am I the only person who thinks this? It's not actually a remotely
important issue to me, other than that it seems silly to stand on ceremony
to wait to elect the new officers, if all the newly elected board members
are present. And it's handy to know who the new chair of the board is,
because then that person can schedule the first meeting of 1997.)
<sigh>
|
scott
|
|
response 20 of 57:
|
Dec 9 10:15 UTC 1996 |
Hey, I put it on the agenda, I wouldn't mind seeing it happen.
|
davel
|
|
response 21 of 57:
|
Dec 9 12:00 UTC 1996 |
(I'm pretty sure I was at that meeting, too, & that's the way I remember it.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 22 of 57:
|
Dec 9 12:50 UTC 1996 |
Oops, my apologies. And I even took the minutes. I'd forgotten
this had come up three years ago. But at least I was right that
it hasn't been "generally" done in one particular way. The
issue's come up twice -- one time decided one way, one time the
other.
|
davel
|
|
response 23 of 57:
|
Dec 9 16:51 UTC 1996 |
It would seem pretty dumb to suggest that the new board couldn't discuss &
even come to a decision in advance. It does seem that the decision should
be confirmed (officially made) once the new board actually meets in the new
year.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 24 of 57:
|
Dec 9 16:52 UTC 1996 |
The difference it makes is that the elected board members arent empowered
by the bylaws to vote until they take office, which means after January 1st.
Allowing new members to vote before they have taken office is a violation
of the byalws (or certainly of Roberts Rules) It may not matter since
Grex may never have any legal action taken resulting from a board
meeting, but if some consequence did happen, this is a serious procedural
loophole that could be used as a challenge.
Its just safer to wait.
|