Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Motion Passed! On to Elections! BULL HOCKEY

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Hugh

I think there's one inaccuracy in what you wrote- please see below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Hugh Blair <hblair@hotfootmail.com>

> Facts:
>
> 1 - a panel was elected for a term of 6 months - now long
>     expired
> 2 - they did nothing that you can point to
> 3 - since their term expired, the membership is now the
>     group that should make decisions

The panel was, in fact, voted with a 12 month term, which was set to expire
late July/early August 2003.

I agree that the panel achieved almost nothing.

Their term has not yet expired, but I agree with you that the membership
should be driving the decision making process now. In the absence of other
methods of establishing opinion, one can only "weigh" the comments made on
this mailing list, and the opinions expressed through the Polling Booth.

It is self-evident that a new election is required. I resigned from the
panel at a point where this membership desire was pretty evident (after the
first poll) but the Panel would not raise a quorum to initiate an election
process. At that point, I took a decision to disassociate myself from the
panel, and identify myself as an ordinary member again.

But the actual term for which the panel was elected was 12 months, not 6
months. I felt (along with the majority of members, I believe) that the
panel had to go, because it had imploded, and that it should not carry on
for its last six months.

I believed that the panel had lost all credibility. The membership who
responded to the poll (170 people) seemed to take the same view. They did
not want the people who came last in the election to end up running the
organisation. They wanted new elections. These new elections are urgently
needed.

I also hope, in the aftermath of further elections, that a process is put in
place to ensure that the members themselves have a means of vetoing panel
actions (vive la France!) and that through regular polling, the membership
itself sets the agenda and defines the direction of the organisation. That
would be truly "bottom up". Also, I think the problem of the non-voting
panelist has to be addressed. It is not acceptable for one or more panelists
to prevent a quorum/decision simply by not voting. So I believe a process
needs to be adopted which makes voting mandatory, even if that vote is an
abstention. Perhaps you use the "runner up in the poll" method there - if a
panelist does not vote by a deadline, then the next person down the election
list takes the vote on that specific issue, to ensure a quorum and active
participation. And if a panelist failed to vote three times, then the
"substitute" person would take over as panelist permanently.

Having said that, I believe the "runner up replacing a panelist" should only
be used up to a point where half the original panel has been replaced.

Will consideration be given to issues like these, when the rules for the
coming election are written up?

kind regards,

Richard H



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