Re: [atlarge-discuss] 11 Member Panel

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 01:11 a.m. 2/06/2003, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> Good morning, Sotiris:
>
> You wrote:
> > With respect to the 11 member panel.  In the event that one or more of
> > the elected Panelists proves to be unverifiable, I think it's best the
> > Panel be reduced in size rather than have any replacements promoted from
> > the candidates who did not make the top 11.
>
> I absolutely disagree with your proposal.
>
> Under no circumstances should the number of panelists be reduced.
Why, Ron? The number of 11 has been forced upon us against the will of most 
of the members.

> Your
> suggestions that the Panel be limited to a quorum of 4 and be reduced in
> number through the disqualification process opens the Panel to capture and
> abuse by 4 people.
Even 3 people can capture the panel. If the quorum is 4 , 3 is a majority.
Three out of eleven. That is unacceptable.

> We need 11 Panelists.
Not for preparing legitimate elections for a Polling Commission and then 
letting them organize proper elections for a new panel of a size set by the 
membership.

> A minimum of 6 participants for a quorum.
And let 4 be a majority? Out of 11?

> ALL Panelists must be copied on ALL discussion.
Yes.

> ALL Panelists must be called to vote.
Yes.

> Failure to participate must lead to replacement NOT attrition.
Agree with that.

-joop-


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