We had this very discussion as a board as soon as Mike turned in his
resignation. In fact we even talked about changing the bylaws to just
allow all 5 to be elected, but several of us (myself included) are
uncomfortable with changing the rules of an election a matter of weeks
before that election starts.
As others have mentioned, by the word of the bylaws we cannot simply
seat the 5th person and not hold an election. Since the remaining term
of the open seat is only a year, we can't seat all 5 people without
first holding an election for the four open seats.
As to making a commitment to seating whoever comes in 5th in the
election, we have held off on that as there's a chance we may:
* select someone else for the seat in meantime
* the 5th person may excuse him or herself from the running
* something else may come up that indicates there is a better
candidate for the seat
In many ways it is like the issues that keep passing here in California
that force the state to use a portion of the tax revenues for a
particular purpose. In hindsight, it is almost always seen as a mistake.
In the case of the open seat, we want to keep all options open as long
as possible.
---
[2]
DANIEL RICH <[email protected]>
Director
+1-408-670-4769
On 2014-05-07 08:58, Elijah Wright wrote:
> It's a thing that can be unofficial policy, until someone raises their
> discomfort with it. The right thing to do would *eventually* be to
> encode it into bylaws, I think, so that you can always fall back on
> rules of order, and say that the membership has established that this
> is how they want this situation to be handled. There is, of course,
> the risk of just establishing too many policies, and being
> overburdened by them. :)
>
> I personally think it's a good solution of what to do with that fifth
> seat with the shorter term -- I don't know how I'd feel about it if I
> were the person being given the shorter slot as the
> #5-recipient-of-votes. Maybe slighted? Maybe not. I'd hope that
> someone running for a seat at all would see it as their opportunity to
> do service to the organization where they would otherwise not be able,
> in this election cycle.
>
> --e
>
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 10:48 AM, Tom Perrine <[email protected]> wrote:
> That sounds like a great way to solve the problem without a by-laws hack. On
> Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: Tom,
> The by-laws don't allow for it as a part of the official "process". Nothing
> in the by-laws, however, stops the board from committing, as the board, to
> simply appoint the 5-place candidate to the vacancy. D On May 7, 2014, at
> 11:42 AM, Tom Perrine <[email protected]> wrote: The bylaws may or may
> not allow for those kinds of election processes. On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:07
> PM, Willard Dennis <[email protected]> wrote: Ah, OK. I knew there
> would be a reason after I sent my message ;) On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 6:14 PM,
> Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote: You'd want to go through the
> motions because 4 of the slots have longer terms (full terms) and one only
> has a partial term. So "winners" should get full terms while the "fifth place
> finisher" can get the partial. D On May 6, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Will Dennis
<[email protected]> wrote: Hmmm... If there's 5 empty slots now, and 5
candidates, considering Derek's suggestion (which I would say is a good one)
then, why go thru with the election process anyways? (unless the membership can
[a] vote for a candidate NOT to be [re-]elected, or [b] would be otherwise
harmed in not getting to vote, which I cannot see the logic of...) Of course,
if someone does throw their hat in the ring (when is/[was] the cutoff for
that?) then there would be more candidates than seats at that point, and of
course an election would then have to be held. Or is there a write-in candidate
process during election that I'm not aware of? Just genuinely curious as to why
if there's candidates =< board seats, why an election would have to be held...
- Will On May 6, 2014, at 4:34 PM, Derek Balling <[email protected]> wrote:
With the recent departure of Mike Julian from the board, is there a plan to
have the fifth-place candidate serve out the remainder of Mi
ke's
term? I understand that the By-Laws say that the Board shall appoint the
replacement director, but it seems to me that since we have five
volunteer-victims, and five open slots, that it shouldn't be hard for the board
to commit to respecting the vote and "appointing" whomever comes in fifth place
to serve the shortened term. (On that note, can I ask that the Board, when
removing a director via resignation, maintain the "vacant director slot" on the
BoD page, so that it is easy to see what year that Directorship serves until,
etc.?) D On Apr 18, 2014, at 6:35 PM, unix_fan <[email protected]> wrote: As
the Leadership Committee (LC) Chair, it is my pleasure to announce the slate
for the 2014 LOPSA Board elections. The polls will open on June 1, and use the
same proven infrastructure (graciously provided by Matt Okeson-Harlow) and
auditor (Andrew Hume) as in years past. There are five confirmed and eligible
candidates running for the four Board seats up for election this year. T
here are
two returning incumbents: Matt Disney and John Boris, and three newcomers:
Steve Vandevender, Steve Murawski, George Beech. Please join me in
congratulating these folks. In the next days, Aaron Sachs and Warner from the
LC are charged with planning for two LOPSA Live sessions they will conduct in
May with the candidates. One will be targeted for 6pm EST, the other will be
for 6pm PST. Expect these events to be announced in the coming weeks.
Candidates are now asked to craft a candidate statement, publicly post it, and
give us that URL. Expect these to be announced as they post them. We will
endeavor to collect a link to them all on one page. I close by giving thanks
again to the candidates and to express deep appreciation to my fellow LC member
volunteers (Scott Murphy, Warner Moore, and Aaron Sachs) for all their
volunteer efforts so far. Sincerely, Mario Obejas LOPSA Leadership Committee
Chair _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss [1] This list provided
by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/ [2]
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss [1] This list provided
by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/ [2]
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss [1] This list provided
by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/ [2]
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss [1] This list
provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/ [2]
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss [1]
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/ [2]
Links:
------
[1] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[2] http://lopsa.org/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
