|
Grex > Coop > #338: proposal to eliminate restriction for Board members | |
|
| Author |
Message |
jep
|
|
proposal to eliminate restriction for Board members
| 
Feb 10 19:33 UTC 2013 |
Proposal: Eliminate bylaw 4b, and make such other changes to the bylaws
as are needed to reflect the intention of that change.
Current bylaw 4b:
b. Upon serving two consecutive terms on the BOD, a person must
vacate the BOD for one year before being eligible to serve
again.
Discussion: This was good in 1992, to prevent cliques from controlling
the new organization. It's an obstacle now. Most elections are not
contested any more. There wouldn't have been an election at all this
January if I had not run and offered a controversial proposal. Other
members said they would have run if not for being restricted by limited
terms.
|
| 91 responses total. |
other
|
|
response 1 of 91:
|
Feb 11 06:37 UTC 2013 |
I'd suggest merely altering the bylaw to allow exemptions to term limits
if no other options are available. Term limited board members could be
nominated and participate in the process all the way through the
election, except that votes for them would only count if otherwise a
seat would be left open.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 91:
|
Feb 11 20:44 UTC 2013 |
Or just choose longer limited terms, like 6 or 8 years.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 3 of 91:
|
Feb 12 00:38 UTC 2013 |
Welcome back, Eric. :)
|
jep
|
|
response 4 of 91:
|
Feb 12 02:29 UTC 2013 |
I'd prefer to remove the term limits entirely. It is simpler. I do not
see the need for term limits any more, not when the membership barely
outnumbers the Board.
There apparently wouldn't have been an election -- 0 nominees -- in the
most recent election if I hadn't run. TS wasn't a candidate until he
found out I was running and that I was pushing for a merger. Denise
said she couldn't run. No one else expressed any interest at all. I
don't know who else was eligible to run but TS, and me once I paid for a
membership. That seems bad to me.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 5 of 91:
|
Feb 13 01:22 UTC 2013 |
Oh, we've several who could serve but choose not to, for reasons that seem
good and sufficient to them. I'll neither name names nor repeat what I've
read elsewhere.
If the membership barely outnumbers the Board, and today it's about 3:1, we
are left with the basic question I've been banging out for the past several
years, and which a merger doesn't answer: Does the membership still support
the organisation? If not, we know WHAT to do, even if we don't WANT to do
it.
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 91:
|
Feb 13 03:40 UTC 2013 |
And remember, Arbornet's members don't support their organization,
either (as evidenced by lack of a Board for one thing). Dissolving
Grex won't solve that, either. Grex is still in good financial
shape and with some effort, we can still find people to run for the
Board. That said, the next Board election will be a real test and
if term limits were removed, well, there won't be many that would
allow to run again. So, we need to do more to encourage people
to run for the Board (and not only from our current list of
members, but from anyone with an interest--they can become members
to meet that requirement).
|