[reccom] Re: voting questions

[Terry Sadler]

Milt and Lu,

Thanks for thinking through this and clearing up any confusion .     I 
think voting on eliminating the necessity to determine willingness to 
clause in the bylaws while we are conducting the election is a good idea. 

Terry

Milt Moody wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> The way we've been conducting the elections is to have each Voting Member rank their TOP THREE choices from 1 to 3.  The top choice would receive 3 points the second choice 2 and the third choice 1 point (if there are more than three nominees then the ones not selected in someones top three would get no points).  We've had a voting form that made the procedure clear, but the bylaws are faulty since as Lu pointed out it says:
> a. Voting Members will rank nominees from 1 to 3.
>
> We have been assuming that it meant to rank the three top choices from 1 to 3. (It would probably be good to fix the bylaws). 
>
> As for deciding whether we can continue the election process without having to ask the nominees if they are willing to serve before they are nominated, I would think that a majority would be fine since the bylaws themselves can be changed by a simple majority.
>
> We could conduct a vote on a bylaw change to eliminate the necessity to determine "willingness to serve" at the same time as we conduct the election, I should think.  That shouldn't be hard to do and it would probably speed up the process having one vote cycle rather than two.
>
> That's how I see it from my experience with the committee and the bylaws.
>
> Milt
>
>
> --- On Tue, 12/9/08, Lu Giddings <seldom74 at xmission.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> From: Lu Giddings <seldom74 at xmission.com>
>> Subject: Re: voting questions
>> To: "Colby Neuman" <colby.neuman at gmail.com>, "David Wheeler" <dswheeler at utah.gov>, "Eric Huish" <poorwill_ at hotmail.com>, "Kristin Purdy" <kristinpurdy at comcast.net>, "Larry Tripp" <ltripp29 at hotmail.com>, "Lu Giddings - xmission" <seldom74 at xmission.com>, "Milt Moody" <miltonmoody at yahoo.com>, "Rick Fridell" <rfridell at burgoyne.com>, "Terry Sadler" <sadler at iveracity.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 9:05 AM
>> Sorry, I some how managed to send this note before
>> completing it. Please let
>> me continue.
>>
>> This is a bit unclear to me. As I understand things, those
>> of you who vote
>> assign each of the five candidates from 1 to 3 points. The
>> candidate you
>> most prefer would receive a lower number of points. I as
>> secretary when
>> counting the votes would give each "1" vote a
>> value of 3 points, each "2"
>> vote a value of 2 points, and each "3" vote a
>> value of 1 point. The two
>> candidates amassing the greatest number of points are
>> elected as voting
>> members of the committee.
>>
>> Is this correct? Milt?
>>
>> Finally. Unless I have missed it, the by-laws are unclear
>> as to the number
>> of committee members required to vote to legitimize the
>> election. On the one
>> hand, committee removals require the vote of a
>> super-majority of the
>> committee, either a 6-1 or 7-0 vote. On the other hand, at
>> meetings a quorum
>> consists of five committee members except when business is
>> conducted by
>> email, in which a quorum consists of a response from all
>> seven committee
>> members. And on third third hand (?!), by-laws can be
>> changed by a majority
>> vote of the committee. Do any of you know where committee
>> member elections
>> fall?
>>
>> I would ask each of you please, take a moment and vote.
>> This will help
>> eliminate any ambiguity in election results.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Lu
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Lu Giddings
>> <seldom74 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> Good morning,
>>>
>>> thus far two of the committee have supported an early
>>>       
>> closing of the
>>     
>>> nomination period and getting on with the vote. While
>>>       
>> this is not a
>>     
>>> majority, I am inclined to agree. Unless I hear a
>>>       
>> dissenting motion in the
>>     
>>> next 48 hours, voting will begin Thursday morning,
>>>       
>> December 11th.
>>     
>>> Regarding voting. The by-laws are as follows:
>>>
>>> Voting Members will rank nominees from 1 to 3.
>>>
>>> b.   Points will be assigned in reverse x to 1, so
>>>       
>> with 3 nominees a vote
>>     
>>> of 1 would equate to 3 points
>>>
>>> c.   Votes will be compiled by the Secretary and the
>>>       
>> nominee with the most
>>     
>>> points will be asked to serve
>>>
>>> d. If there are two open positions, the top two vote
>>>       
>> takers will be asked
>>     
>>> to serve
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a bit unclear to me. As I understand things,
>>>       
>> those of you who vote
>>     
>>> assign each of the five candidates from 1 to 3 points.
>>>       
>> The candidate you
>>     
>>> most prefer would receive a lower number of points.
>>>
>>>       
>
>
>       
>
>
>
>