To tell the truth, I'm a little surprised at how complicated everybody is treating this proposition. When you strip away my explanatory comments, the proposal is currently three sentences long. I'm not really introducing anything new here. All I am proposing is this: make all elections the same.
Some people have expressed concern over positions such as Treasurer and Facilities Liaison. However, I don't think the best way to protect those positions from hasty decisions is to leave them as they are. Currently, I think we should go with an across-the-board staff election for all positions, and then see whether it may be necessary to revise the idea again once we've seen it in practice. Remember, there are other ways to revise positions; not everything is set in stone after everyone's elected.
My only real questions for you now... how would you weight the vote of the board vs the weight of the vote of the general staff? And would you need to meet quorum at this secondary election like we do with anything else we vote on? (seeing as it is hard enough to get most of our people together just once a month especially those on the outer lying areas, getting enough people together two weeks later would be a bit more difficult)
I've spent a while trying to think this all out... I hope that this early in the morning it makes sense to someone.
We would use the exact same method of election as the current staff-elected positions, including the quorum requirements (though the attendance won't be exactly the same since it'll be a separate meeting).
That's why my proposal is so brief and to-the-point. I'm not really suggesting any new processes; the procedures are already in place.
No. This is not irrelevent. Is it reasonable to walk into the next meeting with a new proposal and expect an immeadiate vote? Our SOP is to introduce at one meeting and vote at the next.
After I moved that we vote on it right away, the board requested that I take two weeks to revise and discuss it on the forums (and elsewhere if the opportunity arises). I immediately agreed. It was a speedy negotiation, and I was satisfied, because the board asked me to do something reasonable and promised that if I did, we could put it to a vote in two weeks.
Thank you for offering to help with this proposition, but I am happy to continue to follow the procedure the board recommended at the meeting.
I am attempting to post on the mailing list, but unfortunately the email they have on file for me is out of date. I will have to forward the message through somebody else for now.
To pass this might require a special meeting, which means extra work for the Board and possibly financial cost to the convention.
There's no real need for an additional meeting. It is already scheduled for a vote. Once I've officially finalized the proposal (I expect by Friday), the dialog should simplify greatly. It will boil down to the age-old debate format of "For" and "Against." If you are worried about long speeches, perhaps appointing a moderator would help?
I know we all have stuff to do, but I think this is worth half an hour of our time. And yes, I do believe we can finish in half an hour, if the dialog is organized and we all give each other a turn to talk.
Well, I guess I am being a little presumptive here. Until we see the new proposal, who knows how different it will be. Technically, it will be a new proposal, but we may be able to work around that to shorten the process.
You don't need to wonder... the first page of this thread is being updated in real time. I don't plan on springing anything on the voters; that would be unwise. Actually, the version you see there now will most likely be the final version. The only change I have made so far was to omit a couple of sentences about the Vice Chair position. I wouldn't consider it a "new" proposal.
So, this is an open discussion to change staff voting rights... which change is it going to be? Steve's? Tofu's? Or someone else's? Right now, we are discussing all the options... a final consensus is going to need to be reached soon, or we are going to be debating all of this at the general meeting.
Tofu can make a proposal following mine if he likes. It's up to the board to decide whether to ask him to wait until the following meeting or not. Well, technically, there's nothing in the bylaws stating he has to wait. But he can do as I did, and agree to the board's request.
I don't think we should expect to get a total consensus in this thread. It's in my best interests to know what people want, yes, but if I don't represent people well enough, that'll be reflected in the final vote.
I have a few other questions to answer here, but I have a full-time job so I'm going to have to cut it short for today (I already skipped out on the dishes in order to attend to this thread
). Rest assured I am at least reading whatever everybody says, even if I can't respond to every individual statement.
Also, as I mentioned previously, I can't access the mailing list right now (the email on file is outdated), so I'm going to have to forward it. Vallie will be passing it on to the list.