|
Grex > Coop8 > #131: Nominations for the Board of Directors |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 246 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 175 of 246:
| 
Nov 25 02:28 UTC 1996 |
(Actually, I had spelled "ballot" correctly, but to keep from embarassing
Valerie over her obvious oversight, I've editted response 172 to insert
the typo she imagined she saw. Wouldn't want to spoil her joke.)
|
srw
|
|
response 176 of 246:
|
Nov 25 07:00 UTC 1996 |
As you will find in the minutes the board voted to ask the vote admin to
interpret the bylaws such that non-members can be nominated and run.
I believe that this is a new interpretation, but most agreed that it was a
more precise interpretation of the bylaws. I didn't agree. Still don't, but
I do fully agree that it doesn't matter a hoot, as I don't expect to see a
non-member win an election here.
(Jan, you must have meant "hallucination", not "oversight".
Or did you edit item 175 also to keep me from appearing to have hallucinated,
too?)
|
davel
|
|
response 177 of 246:
|
Nov 25 11:09 UTC 1996 |
No, *I* did that. <snort>
|
kerouac
|
|
response 178 of 246:
|
Nov 25 17:41 UTC 1996 |
But can a non-member make a motion? A nomination is a motion, so if it
is accepted that a non-member may make a nomination, he/she can
therefore make any similar motion. This is consistent with what the
bylaws actually say and is important because non-members are more
empowered if they can make motions in general than simply one kind of
motion (a nomination)
I specifically recall bringing this up about a year ago and I believe
the consensus was that non-members can make motions, since while the
bylaws say members can make motions, they dont say that only members can
or that non-members may not. This is another case where the spirit of
what the creators of the bylawsmay have wanted and what the bylaws allow
end up being different because it is a badly worded document.
|
janc
|
|
response 179 of 246:
|
Nov 25 18:31 UTC 1996 |
If a non-member makes a motion, and somebody says they can't, there is nearly
always a member around who will make it for them. There are clearly some
things, like calling for a bylaw vote, that only members can do. But mostly
the point is pretty moot. It really makes so little different it's not worth
wasting pixels on.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 180 of 246:
|
Nov 25 19:19 UTC 1996 |
Just curious: Do the voting rules preclude "write-in's"? I.e. if a voter
(member) tries to vote for someone not on the ballot, would such a vote be
ignored/invalidated/etc.?
|
dang
|
|
response 181 of 246:
|
Nov 25 21:03 UTC 1996 |
The people running are numbered, and you can only vote by number, so to speak,
so no, you can't write in votes.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 182 of 246:
|
Nov 25 21:11 UTC 1996 |
#181..that should be changed then...write-in votes are
an essential part of any democratic voting setup. Just add a number
that would be denoted as"write-in candidate" or "other" and ad a
er...add a blank line where a name can be typed in.
|
dang
|
|
response 183 of 246:
|
Nov 25 21:19 UTC 1996 |
The reason write in's aren't allowed is that people shouldn't be voted for
if they haven't accepted nomination. This is a volenteer position, not paid,
like the government. The situations are not comperable.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 184 of 246:
|
Nov 25 21:48 UTC 1996 |
#183...*shrug* nobody is saing that someone who wins
via write-in is forced to volunteer for the board. Freedom of
speech means not being told who you can vote for. The names
on the ballot are those who want the position, but it shouldnt be
up to them or to the board to decide who members can vote for.
That is a personal decision that is up to the voter alone. Write-ins
should absolutely and unequiovocally be allowed.
|
dang
|
|
response 185 of 246:
|
Nov 25 21:50 UTC 1996 |
The board has noting whatever to do with who is nominated. Anyone can
nominate anyone, and anyone can run. All this means is that anyone who can
be voted for indicated that they will donate the time to be on the board.
If you allow write-ins, and the person wins and declines, as seems likely (the
declining) then the board votes. Do you, Richard, want a situation where it's
likely the board will decide who fills the position?
This item is linked to coop9.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 186 of 246:
|
Nov 25 22:16 UTC 1996 |
#185...I dont think the bylaws cover that particular situation...
I would think that if someone is elected and declins to serve
or is prevented from serving because he doesnt want to become a member
then a new election is called for. If non-members are allowed
to run in particular, the bylaws need to be clarified about this point.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 187 of 246:
|
Nov 25 22:22 UTC 1996 |
The board fills vacancies, including vacancies created by electees resigning
or not being members.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 188 of 246:
|
Nov 25 22:54 UTC 1996 |
#187...thats RRO...the grex bylaws dont say that.
|
robh
|
|
response 189 of 246:
|
Nov 25 23:04 UTC 1996 |
I dunno, I thought state law said that, not RRO. rcurcl will clarify
shortly, I'm sure. (Remember that state law supercedes the Grex by-laws
for *everything*.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 190 of 246:
|
Nov 26 07:55 UTC 1996 |
My mistake - I misremembered the bylaws. Yes, vacancies are filled by
election (if it isn't too late). Both RRO and state law defer to the
bylaws in regard to the manner of elections or filling vacancies. [State
law supercedes the bylaws except where state law defers to the bylaws,
which is frequently.]
|
robh
|
|
response 191 of 246:
|
Nov 26 09:57 UTC 1996 |
State law: "Please, go on in!"
By-Laws: "After you."
State law: "No no, after you!"
By-Laws: "No, I insist!"
|
kerouac
|
|
response 192 of 246:
|
Nov 26 16:36 UTC 1996 |
The state laws may supercede thebylaws, but the bylaws ignore
state law when it is convenient. For instance, I would imagine
state law says minors (under 18) can't serve on theboard and
participate in the dispensation of financial matters. But Grex has
had board members under theage of 18 before right? State
law may even say something about having minors as voting members
I get the impression that these state laws are loosely enforced and that
much is left to an organization's discretion. So it is less of an issue
what state law dictates and what state laws are more likely tobe enforced.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 193 of 246:
|
Nov 26 17:45 UTC 1996 |
Since/if grex doesn't have the "if elected will not serve" handling in its
bylaws, I'd hope the board would use the "rule of thumb" and appoint the next
highest vote getter...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 194 of 246:
|
Nov 26 19:19 UTC 1996 |
Richard, why don't you read state law, instead of speculating uselessly
about what it says?
|
kerouac
|
|
response 195 of 246:
|
Nov 26 19:57 UTC 1996 |
For one thing I dont live in MIchigan so I dont caremuch what
Michigan state law says. In fact it is possible that
it may be illegal for out of state (non michigan citizens) to
run for the boards of non-profit organizations incorporated in
Michigan.
In that case, out of state members shouldntb e allowed to
even vote in the elections. If state law is the bible and
we must follow state law.
I actually doubt that the state of Michigan cares at all what
goes on here and that is likely unncessary to conform
entirely to state law. Grex probably strethces the
definition of a state "non-profit" anyway since there are lots
of companies that choose to re-invest all of their profits and
grex does no charitable work or community serivices.
|
janc
|
|
response 196 of 246:
|
Nov 26 22:16 UTC 1996 |
Grex is incorporated under Michigan law, so it is regulated by Michigan law.
There is no such thing as a "Michigan Citizen". You don't have to be a
Michigan resident to serve on the board of a corportion encorporated under
Michigan law.
|
scg
|
|
response 197 of 246:
|
Nov 26 22:17 UTC 1996 |
Richard, you not living in Michigan isn't particularly relevant. Grex is in
the State of Michigan, not in the State of Wallner, in case you haven't
figured that out yet.
|
dang
|
|
response 198 of 246:
|
Nov 27 22:19 UTC 1996 |
Besides, Grex has not had a board member under 18. I specifically remember
where a candidate had to wait because he/she was under 18.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 199 of 246:
|
Nov 27 22:36 UTC 1996 |
Richard continues to talk through his hat. In addition, he is recommending
violating the law. Therefore I recommend that we don't listen to him.
|