|
Grex > Coop8 > #131: Nominations for the Board of Directors |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 246 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 150 of 246:
| 
Nov 19 23:03 UTC 1996 |
Then again, if the bylaws don't explicitly state one has to be a member to
be put on the ballot, it seems like you're obliged to put non-member
candidates on the ballot. If there is this strong of an opinion *against*
non-members becoming BOD members-elect, then the candidate would simply not
win. This is a democracy, after all. If there is a silent majority that
wouldn't mind non-members on the ballot, such a majority would be heard on
the election.
(In short, since the membership seems to feel strongly about non-members not
being BOD-elect, putting a non-member on the ballot would be fruitless and
problem-free.)
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 151 of 246:
|
Nov 20 02:21 UTC 1996 |
The ballot makers would then have to indicate for each candidate whether or
not s/he were a member. That would be the only way the members could know
whether or not they were voting for a member or a non-member.
Much easier to amend the bylaws to clarifiy that only members could run for
board seats.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 152 of 246:
|
Nov 20 07:59 UTC 1996 |
Agreed - and it would take only a couple of words. Could do that at the
same time Institutional Members were defined (or not, if separate amending
votes are preferred). Incidentally, the essence of bylaws should be that
they are "frugal", and that it is unecessary to stipulate in them anything
that is already stipulated in law or RRO (if the latter were adopted as
the PA). In this instance, RRO is silent on a requirement of "membership"
to be a candidate, but recommends that membership rights be spelled out.
One such right might be specified indirectly by stating that the
nominations *of members*....etc.
|
ajax
|
|
response 153 of 246:
|
Nov 20 10:48 UTC 1996 |
I have the following board candidate list: popcorn, janc, scg, dang,
chelsea, nsiddall, and tsty, with tsty's candidacy eligibility pending
a board ruling tonight. Can anyone spot any omissions/corrections?
|
dang
|
|
response 154 of 246:
|
Nov 20 16:10 UTC 1996 |
Nope. Looks right to me.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 155 of 246:
|
Nov 20 16:31 UTC 1996 |
Anyone considering the candidates could look at the list, then
run !member and see if any of them are not members. No need to
define them as such on the ballot. Some people might not want
people living out of town or peo[ple with red hair as board members
but that isnt information offered on the ballot either. I think
identifying non-members by putting an asterisk next to theirname or
something is just as discriminatory as doing so based on any other
characteristic they may have. And it would lead voters to the
assumption that such non-members wouldnt become members if elected
(as TS has already indicated he would)
I cant imagine anything more fair and more in keeping with grex's
open access policy than to say that any user of grex can run for
the board. Only members can vote and its not likely a non-member
will get elected, but its the sort of policy that is good in a
symbolic way.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 156 of 246:
|
Nov 20 20:44 UTC 1996 |
I can just see it - 2,000 non-members nominate themselves.
|
brighn
|
|
response 157 of 246:
|
Nov 20 22:56 UTC 1996 |
dependent on payment of membership upon winning, Rane
i hardly think that many people would self-nominate with that clause
and how is changing the bylaws easier than putting the word "nonmember" next
to a name on the ballot? that logic eludes me... one is merely typographic,
the other requries a BOD vote
not that i really care one way or the other, honestly... i just think y'all
are making a mountain out of a molehill... put tsty on the ballot, and then
don't vote for him. that's simple
|
popcorn
|
|
response 158 of 246:
|
Nov 21 00:14 UTC 1996 |
(For what it's worth, brighn's #150 has convinced me to change my thinking.
Why should the board decide that non-members can't run? Let the voters decide
whether or not to elect non-members. That's the point of why the members vote
on things.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 159 of 246:
|
Nov 21 22:46 UTC 1996 |
Thanks, Valerie. =} I appreciate the acknowledgement.
(Maybe that's why, were I a member, I'd vote for you.)
|
dpc
|
|
response 160 of 246:
|
Nov 22 01:25 UTC 1996 |
I'm a member, and I'll vote for her.
|
janc
|
|
response 161 of 246:
|
Nov 22 03:54 UTC 1996 |
I think the board decided that the bylaws can be reasonably interpreted to
say that non-members can run, but the membership requirement must be satisfied
before they take office. Lots of people felt that the bylaws probably should
read otherwise, and that a person who cares enough about Grex to want to be
on the board ought to care enough to come up with some financial support, but
the question was what the rule was, not what it should be.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 162 of 246:
|
Nov 22 17:32 UTC 1996 |
you mean the board agreed with one of my positions?!?!?!
**kerouac faints from shock**
|
robh
|
|
response 163 of 246:
|
Nov 22 18:13 UTC 1996 |
My personal feeling is that non-members shouldn't be running for
the Board, but the by-laws don't say that, and I had to go with
a strict interpretation of the by-laws. Rest assured, if popcorn
doesn't propose an amendment to change that, I will.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 164 of 246:
|
Nov 22 18:30 UTC 1996 |
I'm planning to, in January. Though at this point I agree a bit with both
sides of the issue. (Sigh.)
|
nephi
|
|
response 165 of 246:
|
Nov 23 19:38 UTC 1996 |
Am I correct in thinking that non-members can't nominate folks?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 166 of 246:
|
Nov 23 20:05 UTC 1996 |
Since the odds of any non-member winning an election are extremely
remote (I wonder if TSTY will get any votes at all since
he cant vote for himself), amending the bylaws is really pointless.
This is a case where the spirit of the idea (that board members
should be "members"), is effective enough itself. You never
want to trivialize the importance of "amending the bylaws" of
any organization by doing it too often or doing so when it is not
absolutely necessary.
Since the will of the members is going to dictate that non-members
will most likely never serve on the board, I dont think that rob
or valerie will have a case that it is truly "necessary" to bar
non-members from running at all. Since, however, the same
vagueness applies to non-members making motions, and a non-member
motion being potentially more likely to pass than a non-member
getting elected to theboard, that may be worth addressing. But
I dont think most members care if non-members can or do make motions.
|
ajax
|
|
response 167 of 246:
|
Nov 23 20:39 UTC 1996 |
Re 165, that's another ambiguous issue, which came up last year
as well. I think most people would rather have clearly stated rules,
whatever they think the rules should be, rather than perennial
debates over bylaw ambiguities.
|
davel
|
|
response 168 of 246:
|
Nov 24 14:26 UTC 1996 |
I'd much prefer to see the *making* of nominations open to any interested
user. Agreed that things are probably at a point where these particular
ambiguities should be permanently cleared up - enough so that if Valerie or
Rob didn't make such a motion, I think I probably would.
The board's reading on this question as things now stand seems pretty much
on target to me.
|
dang
|
|
response 169 of 246:
|
Nov 24 16:35 UTC 1996 |
I agree with Dave that anyone should be able to nominate a board member. I
think that some non-members nominated this time too.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 170 of 246:
|
Nov 24 17:33 UTC 1996 |
Since a member can nominate her/him self, and any nomination by anyone
is subject to the nominees acceptance, the point is moot.
|
remmers
|
|
response 171 of 246:
|
Nov 24 18:27 UTC 1996 |
Rane, you took the words right out of my mouth.
|
janc
|
|
response 172 of 246:
|
Nov 24 21:20 UTC 1996 |
Right. Nominations are really pretty meaningless. Anyone who wants to run
can certainly find someone to nominate them, and would still be able to do
so if we restricted nominations to members. If someone can't find a member
to nominate them, then likely they aren't going to get many members to vote
for them so it makes little or no difference if they get on the ballet or not.
The issue is pretty much completely moot, so if we need any rule at all it
might as well be the least restrictive one.
|
popcorn
|
|
response 173 of 246:
|
Nov 24 21:58 UTC 1996 |
<valerie pictures lots of board candidates dancing a ballet> :)
(TS said it's OK to pick at other people's typos, right?)
|
janc
|
|
response 174 of 246:
|
Nov 25 02:25 UTC 1996 |
Yup.
|