[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] The issue of non-voting panelists



Good morning, Richard:

You wrote:
> I suggest that any panelist who fails to vote in three consecutive votes
(or
> in 75% of all votes) should face a vote of confidence from the whole
> Membership.

I agree, but would like it to be made clear that the participating Panelist
has the right to abstain and have it counted as a vote for participation
purposes.

Ron Sherwood

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: "'Atlarge Discuss List'" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 7:55 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] The issue of non-voting panelists


> One of the substantial problems which beset last year's panel was the
> failure of certain panelists to keep in touch, to vote on important
matters
> (or any matters), and to be actively involved.
>
> I think one of the issues which we  - as a community - were moving towards
> agreement on was the requirement that all panelists participated, remained
> involved, and  - in particular - voted on motions.
>
> If a panelist is not prepared to vote on motions, then the Membership
should
> be prepared to evict that panelist and replace her/him with someone who's
> going to actually participate.
>
> I suggest that any panelist who fails to vote in three consecutive votes
(or
> in 75% of all votes) should face a vote of confidence from the whole
> Membership.
>
> Obviously, if legitimate reasons are provided in advance for not voting,
> such as hospitalisation or annual vacation, then that is reasonable -
> particularly if a proxy is provided to meet this eventuality.
>
> What is not acceptable is for a panelist to simply not participate.
>
> On this topic, can I make a plea to the incoming Chair, to formalise the
> process by which votes are taken, to allow enough time for the general
> membership to make informed contributions and properly participate in the
> discussions?
>
> I suggest that, once a Motion has been seconded by another panelist, the
> motion is published on the Mailing List and Website, and a time period of
> generally one week is allowed before voting commences (but this should
> perhaps be flexible).
>
> I also think that all voting records should be published. This could be
the
> role of a panelist given the Office of Secretary. The Secretary's role
would
> be to publicise motions and votes, as well as acting as a conduit for all
> incoming Committee reports and Recommendations.
>
> But as I say, if a panelist fails to participate properly, they should be
> replaced. That should be a decision of the Membership, based on a vote of
no
> confidence.
>
>
> Richard Henderson
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de