RE: IIUG Board Nominations
> -----Original Message----- > From: informix-list-bounces@iiug.org [mailto:informix-list- > bounces@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Neil Truby > Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 8:44 AM > To: informix-list@iiug.org > Subject: Re: IIUG Board Nominations > > <msegel@NOSPAM.Sege.l.com> wrote in message > news:mailman.337.1164205731.29126.informix-list@iiug.org... > > > Did anyone else get this? > > > > I can understand both sides of the issue. > > Imagine 400 candidates. Assuming that these candidates are viable, that > > would spread the votes and would allow someone to get a handful of > > "friends" > > and rig the election. > > > > Its not unusual to have a situation for board members vet the candidates > > in > > order to limit the list to a viable number. > > > > As someone also pointed out, this is a large commitment. > > I don't know if I'm missing the point BIG TIME here, in the style of > Obnoxio, but even if 400 people want to stand does the Board have a right > to > vet those standing? If it does, and such a rejection, unexplained as it > appears to have been, is publicly questionned is there not a obligation on > behalf of "our" board to issue a explanation for their decision? And on > your final point, are the Board members well-placed to judge whether an > individial nominee has or has not the time to honour the commitment? > [mjs] First, lets be clear. Neither of us knows all of the facts. The short answer is yes, the board does have the right to vet the those "standing". The longer answer: In general, the board is governed by their by-laws. With respect to elections, the current board does have the responsibility to ensure that their succeeding board has the ability to be viable. Usually the by-laws will dictate how things are run during the election process. You can either hold run off elections, or you can vet the candidates down to some reasonable number. Run off elections are difficult and time consuming. We could spend 5 months trying to get a set of candidates by having multiple run off elections to go from 400 candidates down to lets say 10 or 15 candidates. Suppose that there were 5 seats up for re-election. If the board limited the selection to just 5 candidates, then yes, I would object. But if the board limited the candidates down to 15 or 20, I would have to say that they did their due diligence and respected the election process. In general, in the event that someone resigns from the board, the board doesn't have to hold elections. They can appoint someone to fill the role for the remainder of their term. There you have no vote. (It should be in the by-laws.) > Maybe elections in America are run differently. I've never understood why > (for instance) Republican supporters don't register as Democrats to ensure > that the opposition party gets saddled with the most unelectable candidate > possible ... > [mjs] No. Not quite. You can only be a member of at most a single political party. (And I don't think its an American thing.) ;-) But hey! I live in Chicago. And you *do* know what they say about voting in Chicago? ("Vote Early and Vote Often!")