Re: Resolution for a board membership election

> >> Given that only Bruce, John and Mako have actually been appointed
> >> by vote of the membership in the first place, is there any reason
> >> for the rest of the board not to offer their seats up for election
> >> too?
>
> A mad grab for power?
>
> Continuity? I think that any more than about one third of the
> board being replaced at any given time is likely to be disruptive.
> At the discussion on #spi at the time of the meeting today, the
> discussion meandered around to electing 3 board members every year;
> with a total size of about 9 people, giving each board member a term
> of 3 years.

I don't personally believe that there is serious risk involved in having
all board seats up for election annually, but I do know I am in the
minority in this opinion thanks to the debates held on spi-bylaws.

All board members would be eligible for reelection and as long as they've
not lost the confidence of the membership, they should have little trouble
being readmitted in an election. With 200+ members and a quorum for
elections, a "mad grab for power" would have to be a highly orchestrated
and complicated venture.

That said, the by-law changes which themselves need to be voted on address
the issue of dividing the election of the board into sections, and make
this aspect of the debate somewhat moot.

> > Indeed Joey and Ian's seats expired months ago, but the board passed
> > an emergency resolution to extend their terms until now. Their terms
> > having now re-expired, I believe this is an opportunity for the
> > board to live up to its responsibility to the membership and not
> > automatically re-appoint those expired board members, as some board
> > members were prepared to do at today's non-quorate meeting.
>
> I see. We have not been living up to our responsibility to the
> members? Looking back at the logs, the notion was not seriously
> considered, despite what the above paragraph makes it sound like.

The responsible way to handle board membership replacement is to ask for
at least token approval of the membership of the board's choice. The event
as I described it above is one of several solutions put forward for the
resolution of the board vacancies, however there was, at least for part of
the meeting, an opinion by some board members that there needed to be 10
members on the board so that recently dropped members could all be
ultimately reinstated.

> Fair enough. I was going to wait until we had elected the new
> board members, and help ratify them, but I suppose I'll stop hogging
> all the power of a SPI board member.

The resolution I put forward eliminates the electoral-college like need
for post-election ratification of the results by the board, by declaring
at the outset that the results are binding.

> I hereby resign from the board of SPI, effective
> immediately. At least I don't have to try and make time in the
> middle of the work day once a month.

Quorum is now 5, instead of 6, for next Tuesday's vote, however a 7 member
board is unconstitutional and some form of resolution will need to be made
at that meeting to resolve this issue.

Is there general support for the draft resolution I have put forward at
the start of this thread?

If not, what can and should be improved?

---
David "cdlu" Graham
Guelph, Ontario
cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca