BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2001-09 > 0999731073


From: "Jana Black" <>
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] SUGGESTED motion for SW/SC vacancy
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 16:04:33 -0700


OK, OK, sheesh :) such pressure :) I yield to the geographic location of the
NC as a perk <VBG> *you* pick the times :)

I agree, we are pretty much on the same page. I really appreciate the way
our "processing" is going. Is it time for a Motion?

Jana

-----Original Message-----
From: Holly Timm [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 4:31 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] SUGGESTED motion for SW/SC vacancy


Looks like we're almost on the same page Jana... one change I would make is
to Eastern time not PDT. I had already formed the intent to state that all
times given for discussion periods, votes, etc would be in eastern time
(Standard or Daylight whichever prevails on the date). Since I will be the
one setting many of those times I am far less likely to get confused if I
stick to my own time zone (a small perk of being NC?<grin>).

At 02:33 PM 9/5/01 -0700, Jana Black wrote:
>I agree with:
>
>1) asking for volunteers
>2) polling if it can be done efficaciously
>3) appointment after consideration of such a poll
>
>I also agree we are likely at a place where we can move forward.
>
>I suggest the following:
>
>The AB President solicits volunteers from the SW/SC Region. Volunteers will
>have until 12 PM PDT 7 September 2001 to email Holly. The AB will take the
>list to the CCs of the SW/SC Region for a poll conducted by the EC. CCs
will
>have until 12 PM PDT 12 September 2001 to respond. The AB will look over
the
>results and decide who to appoint in executive session. Results to be
>announced by 12 PM PDT 14 September 2001.
>
>Your feedback???
>
>Jana
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Bremer,Robert [mailto:]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:50 PM
>To:
>Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] SUGGESTED motion for SW/SC vacancy
>
>
>Jana wrote:
>
>I have had another idea suggested to me:
>
>The AB asks for volunteers from the region to submit their names directly
to
>the AB and then appoints from that group of names as per the by-laws.
>
>It is so simple, it kind of boggles my mind :) and it falls right into the
>bylaws.
>
><snip>
>
>Although the board must make the appointment, what criteria would we
>necessarily use to decide among several volunteers if we were to not bother
>with polling the region's CCs? I think that a poll in which only 30 or 40
>people may respond would still be more representative than the dozen or
>fewer that may be inclined to express an opinion on one of the lists.
>
>I can agree that nominations are part of a formal election process and they
>would probably take too long anyway. I expect that a couple of people
would
>be interested in volunteering so that we could go that route.
>
>Does anyone on the board have a particular problem in asking for volunteers
>for the open position?
>
>Does anyone on the board have a particular problem in polling the SW/SC CCs
>for their preferences among those volunteers?
>
>Does anyone on the board have a particular problem in appointing one of the
>volunteers after considering the results of the CC poll?
>
>If so, please elaborate on the specifics. Comments thus far have focused
on
>the mechanics and on alternate approaches to make an appointment, but
>nothing seems to be workable that takes into account the wishes of the CCs
>of the region while not conducting an actual election contrary to the
>bylaws.
>
>If you have no basic problem with the three issues listed above, perhaps we
>can move on to a motion to get this process underway. There are more
>important issues which we need to address.
>
>Robert Bremer
>

This thread: