BoD Election

[Tar Heel]

In our recent meeting, we discussed staggering the terms of the directors beginning with the next election. There is something else that I think we should also consider changing. In the past election, everyone had 7 votes and they could cast those votes in anyway they wished. IOW, a member could cast all 7 votes for one person, divide them between two people, etc., etc., etc. The results would be much more fair if each member was required to vote for 7 different people. If a ballot doesn't have 7 votes for 7 different people, it should not be counted. Although, allowing voting as it was done this year, does not result in "ballot stuffing" in the true definition of the term, it does contribute to a less than accurate will of the membership. A candidate could get a few of his buddies to cast all 7 votes for him/her and it would really skew the vote. Also, the same result occures if a ballot has votes for less than 7 people (even if the reduced number of votes are for different people). If that occurs, that ballot should also not be counted. This is the only way to get an accurate and fair vote.

I think this should be added to the agenda for a future meeting.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Stuart:

It is definitely worth discussing. BTW we had one person cast only 6 votes, one that cast 8 and therefore was not counted, and about 10 that cast votes for a candidate that withdrew. I gave them an opportunity to recast their vote but those remaining ten did not do so.

Doug

 

[McRabbet]

I would agree with the direction that Stuart has suggested (I actually brought it up after the last election at our first Board Meeting), but I would allow eligible voters (Corporate Members) to vote for any number of candidates while casting only one vote for any one candidate. Their total number of votes could not exceed the rules in place for the election. If there a limited number of people running for the Board of Directors, then we should not force voters to vote for a candidate if they were not in favor of that person. (E.g., in our National or state elections, we can vote for just those candidate for office that we choose; total votes define winners).

As for the terms of office, we need to modify the ByLaws to allow for a transition to multi-year staggered terms. If we wanted two year terms, then we would establish a Term of Office clause such as this:

Term of Office. At the first annual meeting, the members shall elect four (4) directors for a term of one (1) year, and three (3) directors for a term of two (2) years; and at each annual meeting thereafter the members shall elect directors for a term of two (2) years.

If we want three year terms, then we would modify it to read something like:

Term of Office. At the first annual meeting, the members shall elect three (3) director for a term of one (1) year, two (2) directors for a term of two (2) years, and two (2) directors for a term of three (3) years; and at each annual meeting thereafter the members shall elect directors for a term of three (3) years.

Obviously, we can change the numbers included in the voting in these cases. We also need to establish which candidates would be running for one- or two- [or three-] year terms, or it could be set by the number of votes received (highest vote counts for the longer term).

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Rob:

Those are both viable options. We should discuss it. We need to consider the burn-out factor in addition to the continuity factor. Right now I am leaning to a two year term. There is nothing preventing someone from running for re-election after their two year term.

 

[ScottM]

I think a staggered two year term will be the most effective. I also think there should be a limit on the number of consecutive terms one can have. My gut says two but I am not locked in to that. As to voting each voting member should be allowed to vote for any of the positions opened. For example this year we elected seven board members. They should have been allowed only one vote for each candidate however, if they only wished to vote for 1 or 2 or 5 candidates they should be allowed to cast single votes for those candidates and we consider the other votes as they abstained.

 

[TracyP]

As far as I am concerned, I am all for doing a two year term. The stuff Steve turned over to me is just now sinking in to my hard head. And Travis probably feels the same way. A lot to take in. It would also be a lot to pass on in just a years time. The year will just get my feet wet to the point that I am fluent in what I am doing. I would be willing to continue as long as you all will have me. In reference to voting, I really am with Stuart in reference to the possibility of several people casting seven votes for their buddy. A lot to think about...... and discuss.

 

[Tar Heel]

I was not at that meeting and didn't know you brought it up. I guess that just proves the old adage of "great minds run along the same channels" or some such nonsense as that. :wsmile:

I would agree with the direction that Stuart has suggested (I actually brought it up after the last election at our first Board Meeting),...

 

[Tar Heel]

I agree with Scott that staggered two year terms would be best.

 

[Travis Porter]

Ditto what Tracy said. It is a LOT to learn and turn over in a year. The big kicker for treasurer is that our terms align with our fiscal year and I think that is a BAD thing.

As for all the other comments/suggestions as to terms, I think all are saying pretty much the same thing. Move to 2 year terms, and start staggering them. If that is the case, I agree. Scott's point on two consecutive terms being the limit I do not think is a bad idea, but I don't know that I could stand anymore than 2 terms.

Unfortunately, our congressional leaders don't feel the same way about term limits.:nah:

As far as I am concerned, I am all for doing a two year term. The stuff Steve turned over to me is just now sinking in to my hard head. And Travis probably feels the same way. A lot to take in. It would also be a lot to pass on in just a years time. The year will just get my feet wet to the point that I am fluent in what I am doing. I would be willing to continue as long as you all will have me. In reference to voting, I really am with Stuart in reference to the possibility of several people casting seven votes for their buddy. A lot to think about...... and discuss.

 

[McRabbet]

I agree on two year staggered terms, too and I agree with one vote per candidate and allowing voters to abstain if they want. I'm ambivalent on term limits, but two would be okay if members wanted it (as Travis said, two terms would be plenty for most!).

 

[scsmith42]

I agree on two year staggered terms, too and I agree with one vote per candidate and allowing voters to abstain if they want. I'm ambivalent on term limits, but two would be okay if members wanted it (as Travis said, two terms would be plenty for most!).

+1. I'm not sure that I concur re term limits - if we have a great BOD member and they want to keep running, then that's fine with me.

I concur too re the staggered terms, but would suggest that we only hold ONE election. If we keep coming before the membership every few months with an election for a couple of BOD members, I think that folks will start becoming ambivalent. Perhaps we can hold one election per year for the candidates whose term ends that year, and have the terms staggered maybe 2 or three months for the given year.