Misconceptions about filling board vacancies

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
I suspect that there are a few misconceptions about the process of finding, selecting, and affirming a replacement for a board vacancy. The fact is that the bylaws don't say much about it. No process is defined or roles assigned. But the one thing that is does say is the the vote must be unanimous. So that infers that only one candidate at a time can be voted on.

So I have been trying to find the best available candidate and then voting on him/her. To have more than one candidate on the ballot would be not be practical.

in the case, of Ron, we didn't get all six people vote yet, so that is why we had to revote at the meeting.
 

ScottM

Scott
Staff member
Corporate Member
I am not sure I like/agree with the unanimous part but if that is what is documented we are stuck with it until we can formally change it. The reason I do not like/agree as one person could be a real butt-head (we do not have anyone on the BoD that fits that) and black ball every candidate.

I do understand the process of reaching out and recruiting members to fill open spots on the BoD. It is the job of each and everyone of us to do so but in practice it has been the president. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. Just a fact of life. Frankly I had made a couple suggestions on the Webmaster, in private, but I had not made any on the secretary. Sorry but I had not even given it a thought. Should this happen again my only suggestion is to post the discussion thread and wait 24 hours or until every BoD member has commented (whichever is sooner) before calling a vote. That means we on the BoD must respond timely.
 

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
I am not sure I like/agree with the unanimous part but if that is what is documented we are stuck with it until we can formally change it. The reason I do not like/agree as one person could be a real butt-head (we do not have anyone on the BoD that fits that) and black ball every candidate.

I do understand the process of reaching out and recruiting members to fill open spots on the BoD. It is the job of each and everyone of us to do so but in practice it has been the president. Nothing wrong with that IMHO. Just a fact of life. Frankly I had made a couple suggestions on the Webmaster, in private, but I had not made any on the secretary. Sorry but I had not even given it a thought. Should this happen again my only suggestion is to post the discussion thread and wait 24 hours or until every BoD member has commented (whichever is sooner) before calling a vote. That means we on the BoD must respond timely.

Scott, It is not clear to me why the discussion thread and the vote thread can't be up at the same time. There is nothing that you can't wait until you feel ready to actually vote.
 

ScottM

Scott
Staff member
Corporate Member
This is my 2 cents. I am thinking about the greater good. I think we should allow at least 1 day (24 hours) for BoD to know about the discussion and have the opportunity to voice opinions before voting. If they fail to act then shame on them. Let's just say someone had a real issue or knew some important facts about a candidate and all the other BoD members had already voted before they could even make their opinions known we could have a bigger issue then having a vacant spot. I doubt 1 day in the scheme of things will not make difference in running NCWW. Under the way we are doing it now a BoD member could be off the site for 6 hours and return to find an out of the blue discussion thread and 5 of the 6 BoD members having already voted.
 

FlyingRon

Moderator
Ron
Of course if you feel that things haven't been discussed sufficiently, you can always vote NO or withhold your vote, as Steve says.

As for "who" can start these discussions, it would seem that any board member is equally qualified to make such recommendations. It would certainly behoove whoever is proposing a candidate to determine the willingness of the candidate to serve if elected. I suspect that it's always going to be harder to find candidates than having too many of them.
 

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
This is my 2 cents. I am thinking about the greater good. I think we should allow at least 1 day (24 hours) for BoD to know about the discussion and have the opportunity to voice opinions before voting. If they fail to act then shame on them. Let's just say someone had a real issue or knew some important facts about a candidate and all the other BoD members had already voted before they could even make their opinions known we could have a bigger issue then having a vacant spot. I doubt 1 day in the scheme of things will not make difference in running NCWW. Under the way we are doing it now a BoD member could be off the site for 6 hours and return to find an out of the blue discussion thread and 5 of the 6 BoD members having already voted.
You know what? I don't give a #### anymore. I will leave to the other boards members to find/nominate any vacancies from now on.

The reality is that it doesn't matter that much. One way or another as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting things done. what is frosting me is that once again I got jumped on about something that wasn't that important in the big picture. After, the BOD meeting, I just don't need to be called out on everything so soon.

I have found and sold two new BOD members who will be a lot better than the people they are replacing. Well, excuse me for doing my job.
 

Phil S

Phil Soper
Staff member
Corporate Member
Everybody take a deep breathe please.

Steve, without your grab hold and get things done attitude I doubt this site would have ever existed. In July you shared a vision of putting together a training program that stretched our boundaries and just look at it now, a few growing pains but we are gaining speed and we have a tail wind.

Steve, keep your vision, concentrate on the macro level and we will work thru the details

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Premier Sponsor

Our Sponsors

LATEST FOR SALE LISTINGS

Top