Booking It
Knows what a fatty is.
It only took 30 seconds to vote. Please make your voice heard!
Good luck to all of the candidates!
Good luck to all of the candidates!
Agreed - +1Just voted. I voted "no" on both questions -- I think that the membership is smart enough to decide whether board members should share a roof or whether they have spent enough time off the Board. Maybe I am giving the membership too much credit, but I think these are decisions we can make at the ballot box. This seems like it is aimed at a certain individual rather than addressing any real problem.
Erik
Just voted. I voted "no" on both questions -- I think that the membership is smart enough to decide whether board members should share a roof or whether they have spent enough time off the Board. Maybe I am giving the membership too much credit, but I think these are decisions we can make at the ballot box. This seems like it is aimed at a certain individual rather than addressing any real problem.
Erik
These are not aimed at any one individual. That individual is leaving the board. If my wife and I both served on the board, I could say "Honey, I'll do all of the laundry for the next month AND cook all of the dinners if you'll vote the way I want you to on an upcoming issue." Seems almost ridiculous but who's to say it wouldn't effect certain issues? As for the three years off, it gives other members the opportunity to contribute with fresh ideas and energy. Everyone wants term limits in Congress - why not KCBS? Do we not have a very clear picture now of what can happen when people become attached to their board seat and have moss grow all over them?
YES Change Bylaws
A vote YES means you WANT to add the following to the KCBS bylaws:
Section 4.03 Requirements
A Member of the Corporation is not eligible to seek election for Director of the Corporation if the member shares a physical address with any currently Director of the Corporation.
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.
Now . . .
I hope one of you can write in English!
Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.
With any currently Director?
This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.
And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.
I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.
I saw the currently thing and hoped it was just a typo here and that if and when it passes, they'll notice it and make the correction.
Just voted the Brethren party line. Good Luck guys.
Now . . .
I hope one of you can write in English!
Why in the world vote for a change to the Bylaws to include an incoherent requirement.
With any currently Director?
This is just plain embarassing from a grammatical standpoint.
And the way it was intended to be written would also prevent a member sharing the same address from being able to run even if the other member's term is ending.
I say, let the membership decide who they want at every election. And if the organization doesn't think I'm smart enough or can't be trusted to decide these things on my own, then screw them, I'm out of here.
Jeff,
I'll take your position on this at face value. But I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest this ballot question isn't about Merl, considering this whole push to keep related parties off the Board started when Carol ran.
And your justification that this is necessary to prevent some sort of domestic horse-trading is silly considering the tens of thousands of married couples who somehow find a way to work together on boards and in professional environments without basing their decisions on who took the trash out the night before.
I can at least understand a policy basis for spacing out Board terms, although I personally tend to look down upon term limits because it ends up putting too much power in the hands of the entrenched bureaucracy. But I see no such basis for married couples. Yes, it is possible that you could have a married couple that votes in lockstep or where one spouse just follows the other's lead. But there are many that don't, just as there are many "independent" board members that follow someone else's lead. Seems like a tenuous basis for crafting policy.
I'll say it again -- trust the membership, give them the tools to make decisions, and let them judge who should and should not be on the Board. If you don't trust a married couple on the Board, then don't vote for them. But don't limit my choice because you don't trust me to vote the right way.
Erik
Voted twice (found a loop hole)
You are proud of that? :tsk: