BOARD-L Archives

Archiver > BOARD > 2002-05 > 1020457781


From: "Kathy Heidel" <>
Subject: Re: [BOARD-L] Voting
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:29:41 -0500


Actually all AB business was formerly conducted on Board-Exec. The Board
list was for Motions to be presented to the membership and then you usually
didn't see hide nor hair of the motion until it was voted on. This is why
some of us wanted the "Open Board". Now the Board Exec is used for personal,
and personnel problems as it should be. There really isn't anything "secret
or devious" about the list and is used infrequently, to suggest otherwise is
ridiculous.
I think that we are getting far afield here in laying down stipulations
and etc. I liked Jana's wording and intention very much and think that it
covers the matter fully. I wish that we could get back to this and perhaps
add in Phyllis's concern in such a way that we could agree.
What about?
If any AB member knows they will be out of town and wants to inform us
what their vote would be "in absentia," they can post an "absentee ballot"
to Board-Exec where we will all see it and the Secretary can include it in
the vote results. The fact that it is posted on Exec serves like a PIN in
identifying that the email indeed came from the Board member so named. The
fact that we will all see it evidences that its intent is as suggested and
the person makes their own vote - (Or in the case of an inability to get to
a computer to vote then the disconnected AB member could call another AB
member and ask that they cast their vote. This could be verified when the AB
member is able to contact the AB upon return.
I know that in Phyllis's case there are "low water crossings" in her
vicinity and at certain times of the year the creeks run high and she is
likely to not be able to cross and get to town from her hilltop. So as in
her case if she chose to call someone to vote for her we could accept and
when she is able to ford the crossings she could verify her vote.
Kathy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jana Black" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 2:52 PM
Subject: RE: [BOARD-L] Voting


> As a fellow newbie, I do not know the history of this. Perhaps someone
> else can shine some light to give you an answer....
>
> Experience tells me however, that Executive Committees (Sessions)
> usually arise out of a need for a format where sensitive or confidential
> topics can be addressed appropriately then brought back to the assembly
> for the final vote. In our venue, an EXEC list accomplishes this purpose
> since we do not meet in person to remove to committee. As I read Sturgis
> (p. 108-9) it is neither a matter of requirement nor custom, but instead
> a matter of "invitation" to participate in accomplishing business
> effectively under varying circumstances. While an AB member always has
> the choice to act on the invitation or not, the NC also has the option
> to remove the person for non-participation. Under such circumstances, it
> was the person's choice to give up the privileges they would have had by
> participating.
>
> I agree with Teresa that it is "an inappropriate violation of Board
> members' privacy to _require_ them to inform you of why they are
> unavailable for any length of time." This is where the Exec-L comes in,
> especially in a virtual world. A member can inform colleagues there that
> they will be away - no questions asked and privacy at large is
> protected. They can also appoint a proxy to vote for them if the leave
> will be extended or they can cast an absentia vote for a short term
> absence. I think the reasons something like EXEC-L are set up are good
> ones - sometimes you just cannot have it both ways. I do not think it is
> possible to be private and public all at the same time - shrug.
>
> Jana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phyllis Rippee [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:11 PM
> To:
> Subject: [BOARD-L] Voting
>
>
> I guess that I should have asked this question, where in the
> requirements for being an AB member does it state that a USGW P member
> HAS to be subbed to and participate on Board-EXEC? Now, is it a
> requirement for "holding office" or is it a "custom" that has developed?
>
> Phyllis
>
>
>
>
>
>

This thread: