Re: Amended Resolution

I've been thinking about the officer/non-officer thing and it strikes me
that it's a non-starter.

I mentionned this in channel yesterday, but let's look at this time-line.

In theory, a board member's term is two years. We will assume for the
moment that officers are elected on even years, and non-officers on odd
years.

2003, John Doe is elected to the board.
2004, An officer election is held
2004 later, John Doe is appointed to officer
2005, John Doe's term would normally expire, but as an officer, he
continues sitting
2006 early, John Doe steps down as an officer
2006, officer elections are held but John Doe is a regular board member
2007, John Doe's seat is finally up for election after he has managed to
stretch a 2 year term into 4.

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

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, John Goerzen wrote:

> Good plan.
>
> Another thing that just occured to me is that the bylaws amendment currently
> proposes an election for officers this year and an election for other
> members next year (2003 and 2004 are hard-coded into it, with language that
> says how this starts the pattern and it should be continued.) Since
> officers are not involved in the current problem, we'd need to address this
> by one of these methods:
>
> a. Amending these dates to be 2004 and 2005, then hold a special
> election for vacant positions as already contemplated in the new
> bylaws;
>
> b. Flip-flopping the dates and hold the election for non-officer members
> this year, and officers next;
>
> c. Hold the election for officers this year as scheduled, as well as the
> special election for vacant seats.
>
> I think option C is rather unwieldy, considering the newness of things, so I
> would support either A or B, though I would still prefer option C over doing
> nothing to fix the bylaws.
>
> -- John
>
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 04:24:56PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > The board should appoint an interim board member (the DPL would be a good
> > candidate) on a mandate that he shall serve until and only until the
> > by-law referendum and/or an election is complete, or until January 1st,
> > which ever comes first.
> >
> > ---
> > David "cdlu" Graham
> > Guelph, Ontario
> > cdlu(at)railfan(dot)ca
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, John Goerzen wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 03:33:23PM -0400, David Graham wrote:
> > > > I would support a by-law referendum instead of a board election now,
> > > > following which the board would hold an election under either the current
> > > > by-laws or the new ones, depending on the outcome of the referendum.
> > >
> > > That makes very good sense.
> > >
> > > My only concern is how quickly we could make that happen. In the mean
> > > time, the board is in a questionable status as it doesn't have the amount of
> > > members mandated by the current bylaws.
> > >
> > > -- John
> > >
>