Election FAQ

[modab]

Hi, I'm helping our con secretary, Ryan, with the election this year. As the date of the elections draws near, I will answer submitted questions about the election process in this thread. This post will be edited to provide the most accurate and up-to-date data. When information changes in an important way, I will strike through the incorrect information, but leave it up so people can see the physical difference, like so: Objection! Overruled.

• When will the Elections be held?

At the General Meeting on Saturday October 11th, 11:00am to 6:00pm. The meeting may not take the whole time, but the room is reserved if we need it. During the election process, we hope to be thorough but concise.

• Where is this General Meeting?

At the location of the 2009 Kumoricon
Hilton Portland and Executive Tower
921 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Pavilion Room
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=921+SW+Sixth+Avenue,+Portland,+OR+97204&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=17

• Where are the position descriptions, threads, etc?

I will create individual threads for each position before September 13th. Position threads have been created. You will be able to ask questions for the nominees in these threads. Please be an active participant! The position description will eventually be posted or linked in the thread. They are being updated by previous directors as I write this. Our current target to post them is September 17th.
Rough drafts of the positions have been posted in all the nominee threads, except for the Chair position, which we have yet to receive a description for. The position descriptions will be edited so that they are similarly formatted and details of the job individual candidates may have forgotten to write down can be added in. Position threads have also been created for the Secretary and Vice Chair positions, in the event the staff and board decide to make them electable positions at the general meeting.

• Who gets to vote?

Anyone who was staff before the meeting. You can't show up to the meeting, sign up as staff, and vote. So if you do want to vote and you aren't staff yet, you'd better talk to someone pronto (it may already be too late, so hurry!) It is too late to become staff if you aren't already. If you aren't quite sure whether you are staff or not, you should clear this with the Secretary. The last thing you want is a nasty surprise at the election. Please bring some identification so we can make sure you're staff. I don't personally know everybody who's staff at the con, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

• What are the voting rules?

We will vote for each candidate one at a time (the order is still TBD)
You will have a ballot with all the nominated candidates (barring any last minute changes).
Check the box clearly next to the candidate you want,
OR you can check the "No Confidence" box, which means you think the vote should be postponed,
OR you can write in the name of a last-minute candidate or anybody else you feel like,
OR you can leave it blank and we won't count your vote.
I strongly suggest you check the box next to a candidate, unless you truly think none of the candidates would work well.
Remember, if we can't understand your ballot, it won't count, so write clearly.

• Can I still vote if I can't show up?

No, but you may appoint someone to vote in your place. It's a bit tricky and we don't advise it.
It's called voting by proxy.
You have to give a signed affidavit to our secretary (Ryan) saying who is going to vote in your place. It should read something like "I soandso hereby grant the right for thisguy to vote as my proxy in all matters of Altonimbus Entertainment business to which I would normally have the right to vote until such and such date. Signed, soandso date, whenIsignedit". You should try to get it notarized. You will also need to provide a phone number so that our secratary can call you before the vote as one more verification step. Yes, it's difficult! But we'd prefer you show up. And remember, the person you give your vote to can vote for whoever they feel like!

• Can I vote for staff who don't show up?

Yes, but really, how reliable are they going to be as a director if they can't show up for the second-most important meeting of the convention? Unless they're in the hospital, there's not much excuse, right?

• How do you decide who wins a vote?

First, a couple of definitions for you:
A majority means someone got more than half the votes.
A plurality means someone got the most votes.
There's a difference, and you should wrap your head around that.
If someone gets a majority of votes, they win the election. Simple as that.
Otherwise, if the "No Confidence" vote gets a plurality, we postpone the election.
Otherwise, we'll probably have a runoff vote. In this case, that means we will drop the nominees who ranked in the bottom third of the vote, lowest 1/3 of the votes, and do another vote with the remaining candidates. We'll keep doing runoffs until we run out of candidates to drop. If we still don't get a majority, we'll postpone the election. There are specific rules for all of this, and I will PM or email anyone who wants to see them. This is just a paraphrase.

• Is it okay for deferred candidates to reply to the candidate threads?

There is nothing that prevents anyone from posting to these threads. Doing it as "a candidate" implies that the poster is running, however. A candidate who has deferred should therefore not post unless they no longer wish to defer their candidacy, and either accept or decline.

• How will the elections be run?

This is a very rough draft. It will be similar to previous convention elections. The candidates for the position will each give a brief presentation, no more than 5-10 minutes (and we might change this to be even shorter). There may have to be special rules for the operations position, because so many people are nominated. Whatever the time limit is, I will be very strict about adhering to it. After that, there will be a microphone stand next to the audience and everyone can line up behind the stand to ask questions to the candidates. You should try to have questions that apply to all candidates if you possibly can. Your questions should not take longer than 30 seconds to ask. Each candidate will have 1-3 minutes (TBD later) to respond, and again, I will be strict about response time.

I would like a discussion in this thread about what should happen next. In the past, we then ushered the candidates outside and then talked about them freely while they were not present. If any issues came up, the moderator would bring them back in and ask them about some of the issues that came up. I'm not sure we should continue this tradition. For one thing, as the con has grown so much larger, it becomes more difficult to believe that the candidates won't hear what is talked about while they are outside. If we have bad things to say about them, we might as well say it to their face. It was nice in the past to believe we could do these things without hurting someone's feelings. But now people are probably recording these conversations anyway.
A suggestion: people could give the moderators questions or statements about the candidate. The moderator could then bring these points up (if many people asked or commented about the same thing), so that they would remain anonymous. Perhaps this is inappropriate? Please do talk about this in the thread below. Be civil (especially do NOT bring up previous specific experiences, make the statements general. If I see specific examples being brought up, I will delete them, because the whole concept is a touchy one.

If you have any disagreements with anything in the FAQ, or would like to talk about the process in a civil manner, please post below. Posts that stray will be modified or deleted.
To keep things honest on my part:
Number of posts modified/deleted:2
If you don't agree with modifications made to your post you are welcome to delete your post.

[staze]

Would it also be okay for deferred candidates to reply? I would be really into also hearing Cassie's ideas, as she works in manga publishing.

Ummm... wouldn't it seem kinda pointless for them to reply if they haven't made up their mind yet? I mean, I guess they could... but I think they have other things to decide first before worrying about campaigning.

[RemSaverem]

Would it also be okay for deferred candidates to reply? I would be really into also hearing Cassie's ideas, as she works in manga publishing.

Ummm... wouldn't it seem kinda pointless for them to reply if they haven't made up their mind yet? I mean, I guess they could... but I think they have other things to decide first before worrying about campaigning.

I understand what you're saying, but the way I think of it is that many people who defer, do so not because they would be unwilling to take the position, nor because they aren't sure they're qualified, but in *deference* to someone they love or at least respect, who is also nominated, not wanting to compete with them; but if that person were to, for example, accept another position for which they are also nominated, then the first person would change their deferred status to accepted.

In fact I was wondering which order the GM will run. Because for example whether or not some positions will be made staff-elected, can have impact on certain races, such as this one. Unless it would be possible for someone to hold both a staff-elected and a board-elected position?
And in which order department heads are elected will make a huge difference. I'd certainly put Ops last....

[staze]

I understand what you're saying, but the way I think of it is that many people who defer, do so not because they would be unwilling to take the position, nor because they aren't sure they're qualified, but in *deference* to someone they love or at least respect, who is also nominated, not wanting to compete with them; but if that person were to, for example, accept another position for which they are also nominated, then the first person would change their deferred status to accepted.

In fact I was wondering which order the GM will run. Because for example whether or not some positions will be made staff-elected, can have impact on certain races, such as this one. Unless it would be possible for someone to hold both a staff-elected and a board-elected position?
And in which order department heads are elected will make a huge difference. I'd certainly put Ops last....

Rem,

we're actually working on order right now... we'll post that info when we have it, though, we may not determine it until the actual election. I can say that Chair will be first.

We're also working on what to do should someone be running for multiple positions, and what it would mean if they won multiple positions. we'll have that information posted with the rest of the "rules". Give us some time.

Again, people that have deferred can post... but like I said, I think they logically should figure out if they're willing to run or not before they bother. By responding, there's a natural inclination of those reading to say "this person is running". So responding is, in it's own way, an acceptance. Hence, the reason people considering presidential runs don't say "I'm thinking about it, and here's what I'd do", they say "I've appointed an exploratory committee to look into it" or "no comment". Because saying anything else is giving false hope/fear to supporters/opponents alike.

I know in at least one case, there is someone that has deferred because they don't know if they're ready, rather than out of respect. Most cases I see are actually like that... where people are in shock from being nominated, and therefore aren't able to respond at that time. Also, many of the "defers" are people that were nominated, and seconded, but weren't actually at the nominations "meeting" after rant and rave... so they are automatically deferred.

But, good questions... once we have answers to the procedural questions, they'll be posted here by Peter or myself. At this point, I wouldn't expect any of that information before the 22nd or so. It could be earlier, which would be great... but at this point, Peter and I are both busy at our day jobs getting read for the first day of Fall term when the students all flood back to campus.

Thanks!

[RemSaverem]

You're welcome, and thank you! I forgot all about the auto-defer for those not present when nominated!

[modab]

Bump for Sunday morning. Posts were moved from another thread. FAQ was updated regarding deferment and position descriptions.

[RemSaverem]

Since before the elections there will be discussion that hypothetically could result in Vice Chair and/or Secretary becoming staff-elected, should there also be threads for inquiries of those named as under consideration for those positions, albeit that presently they are intended to be board-elected (or appointed) positions? And eventually, position descriptions?

Thanks!

[modab]

That's a good point, Rem. I may create a provisional post for them soon.

[RemSaverem]

That's a good point, Rem. I may create a provisional post for them soon.

Thanks, Peter.

[TomtheFanboy]

since they involve the staff vote and they will take place at the election, can we have a thread in this section about the proposals to amend the bylaws that are on their way? Steve's proposal effects the voting that day, and Tofu had a proposal to split Steve's proposal in twain (lol twain). Is the board going to surprise us with a proposal like usual?

[RemSaverem]

I personally have no intent to do this myself, nor have I heard of anyone intending to do this. But for the record, since None of the Above is being listed as an option, are write-in candidates also an option, within KC bylaws?

[TomtheFanboy]

I personally have no intent to do this myself, nor have I heard of anyone intending to do this. But for the record, since None of the Above is being listed as an option, are write-in candidates also an option, within KC bylaws?

Write in candidates are not an option, you can only vote for nominees who have accepted their nomination.

[JeffT]

I personally have no intent to do this myself, nor have I heard of anyone intending to do this. But for the record, since None of the Above is being listed as an option, are write-in candidates also an option, within KC bylaws?

Write in candidates are not an option, you can only vote for nominees who have accepted their nomination.

This is not the case--write-ins will likely be allowed, but the nominations are the way to get on the ballot. We are still in the process of working out the elections procedure to very great detail, and once they're finalized they'll be posted in this thread.

[TomtheFanboy]

OK, do the candidates still have to be there?

[JeffT]

OK, do the candidates still have to be there?

Being discussed.

We're also looking at proxy voting, order of elections, exactly how to do the runoff process so it's most fair for everyone, technicalities in vote counting, and how the bylaws amendment would impact everything. This should be wrapped up I think in the next week.

[modab]

Bump! I updated the FAQ with detailed voting rules, including voting by proxy, runoffs, the concepts of majority and plurality, and a bunch of fun stuff you should read.

Most importantly, I wrote about the "behind closed doors" part of voting we used to have. What should we do with that?? It seems a little obsolete.

[modab]

since they involve the staff vote and they will take place at the election, can we have a thread in this section about the proposals to amend the bylaws that are on their way? Steve's proposal effects the voting that day, and Tofu had a proposal to split Steve's proposal in twain (lol twain). Is the board going to surprise us with a proposal like usual?

Now that we have the basic voting rules decided on, I will look at how the proposals to make Vice and Secretary elected positions will affect our meeting. Is there going to be one proposal, two proposals, no proposals? Will we know their exact wordings before the meeting so I can make appropriate contingency plans? I suppose I will have to talk to all the parties involved and understand their intentions. Will the bylaws be voted on before the election? Will they then immediately take effect? Are we giving enough notice to people who want to run for those positions, when they would have had more time otherwise?

[valliegirl]

I would like a discussion in this thread about what should happen next. In the past, we then ushered the candidates outside and then talked about them freely while they were not present. If any issues came up, the moderator would bring them back in and ask them about some of the issues that came up. I'm not sure we should continue this tradition. For one thing, as the con has grown so much larger, it becomes more difficult to believe that the candidates won't hear what is talked about while they are outside. If we have bad things to say about them, we might as well say it to their face. It was nice in the past to believe we could do these things without hurting someone's feelings. But now people are probably recording these conversations anyway.
A suggestion: people could give the moderators questions or statements about the candidate. The moderator could then bring these points up (if many people asked or commented about the same thing), so that they would remain anonymous. Perhaps this is inappropriate? Please do talk about this in the thread below.

I really like the idea of people handing off questions to the moderator to remain anonymous.  I want for everyone to have their concerns heard, and I think the candidates should have the ability to hear these concerns and have a chance to speak on their own defense. 

[valliegirl]

Are we giving enough notice to people who want to run for those positions, when they would have had more time otherwise?

The majority ruled to put off this vote until the elections meeting.  It's up to the nominees to be prepared for the possibility of the vote happening at this meeting.  If we open up a thread for the Vice and Secretary nominees to field questions, it'll help for all of us to be prepared should the majority open up either/both of these positions to a staff election.

[staze]

I would like a discussion in this thread about what should happen next. In the past, we then ushered the candidates outside and then talked about them freely while they were not present. If any issues came up, the moderator would bring them back in and ask them about some of the issues that came up. I'm not sure we should continue this tradition. For one thing, as the con has grown so much larger, it becomes more difficult to believe that the candidates won't hear what is talked about while they are outside. If we have bad things to say about them, we might as well say it to their face. It was nice in the past to believe we could do these things without hurting someone's feelings. But now people are probably recording these conversations anyway.
A suggestion: people could give the moderators questions or statements about the candidate. The moderator could then bring these points up (if many people asked or commented about the same thing), so that they would remain anonymous. Perhaps this is inappropriate? Please do talk about this in the thread below.

I'm not sure how well this would work. Basically this would be creating a situation where the moderator becomes a checkpoint for questions, and could arguably be called non-objective as to what questions were passed on, and which weren't.

I see the issue of questioning anonymously being very valid... but unless the moderator passes on all questions, or we continue how we've gone, I don't see a way for truly contentious questions to get asked without several people all knowing the same issues/facts/questions, etc. I've always looked at these pre-election discussions as a more town hall style than a strictly moderated affair. *shrugs*

Also... I'm in favor of NOT recording the elections meeting (that is to say, specifically disallowing recording the event). It is just going to make things less open, more prone to retribution should the recordings be made public, etc. If it were to be recorded, I would say that it should be done officially, and any material from that recording would only be released should some part of it be specifically requested. And even then, I would argue it should only be audio, and not video.

[Hawkeye]

Also... I'm in favor of NOT recording the elections meeting (that is to say, specifically disallowing recording the event). It is just going to make things less open, more prone to retribution should the recordings be made public, etc. If it were to be recorded, I would say that it should be done officially, and any material from that recording would only be released should some part of it be specifically requested. And even then, I would argue it should only be audio, and not video.

Thank you Staze for your assessment on NOT recording the elections meeting.  My opinion about that is simple.  I'd rather have one official recording than several unofficial, it makes it easier and actually makes the information better distributed.  That way the recording may not seem biased towards or against any one person, because the person doing the official one should be neutral.  Those of us running for a position can expect to get roasted, that's a chance we take, doesn't mean we want to hear about it in a manner designed to purposely hurt us and destroy our feelings on a personal level, which ushering them in and out can lead do.  I do think that if we go this route, we need to clearly state that all recording devices with the exception of the official one chosen by the con are not allowed to be in use and if they are, then they either have the data from the meeting erased or they lose the right to be at that meeting and/or lose the right to vote if they're staff.

[TomtheFanboy]

I was planning on bringing my camera to the elections and filming the candidate's speeches, Q&A, and the announcement of the winners. I was not planning on recording any of the portions where we ask the candidates to leave the room.

I believe that we should still have the portion of the discussion where the candidates leave and people are free to discuss issues amongst themselves right before the vote is taken. The moderator can shut down anyone who gets too personal, angry, argumentative, or off topic.

[melchizedek]

Are we giving enough notice to people who want to run for those positions, when they would have had more time otherwise?

The majority ruled to put off this vote until the elections meeting.  It's up to the nominees to be prepared for the possibility of the vote happening at this meeting.  If we open up a thread for the Vice and Secretary nominees to field questions, it'll help for all of us to be prepared should the majority open up either/both of these positions to a staff election.

I figured that the change wouldn't go into effect until the vote of 2009

[modab]

I was planning on bringing my camera to the elections and filming the candidate's speeches, Q&A, and the announcement of the winners. I was not planning on recording any of the portions where we ask the candidates to leave the room.

I believe that we should still have the portion of the discussion where the candidates leave and people are free to discuss issues amongst themselves right before the vote is taken. The moderator can shut down anyone who gets too personal, angry, argumentative, or off topic.

Tom, you're the first in this thread to stick with the status quo. Any reasons you can give without getting into specifics? Would switching formats be worse, and for what reasons?

As for the filming, I will make a decision this weekend, though I think people expect more privacy in an election as a rule.

[DancingTofu]

Tom's filming serves the purpose of providing a visual of the Meeting Minutes.  I think anything that's posted on the site officially should be fine being videotaped by Tom officially.  I would trust Tom to edit out parts of the video that we don't want getting out and about, while keeping any video footage that is made available in its original, unedited state.

[kylite]

let me be blunt. I have beenm with the con since 2004 and have attended the elections each and every year. Each and every time we go in with multiple candidates and then have them step out fo the room so we can speak about them freely without them hearing who said what. More often then not this gets rather brutal and theres always one person who sneaks a recording device in which in turn gets back to those who should not hear things. Feelings get hurt, friendships get ruined, etc....

So honestly, and mind you this just my opinion, there should be ONE recording done by a BOARD member. All other recordings/filmings should be banned.

And for those attending, please remember what is said in this meeting is not meant to be said outside this meeting.

that is all...

[valliegirl]

I figured that the change wouldn't go into effect until the vote of 2009

The original intent was for it to go into effect for this board election, in which we elect the board of 2009.  However, if people push it back further, or someone specifically makes a motion that we don't put it into effect until after the current election, and the majority rules in favor of that, then it will be put off until the election for 2010's directors.  (or if people vote no altogether, then it'll just be quashed)

let me be blunt. I have beenm with the con since 2004 and have attended the elections each and every year. Each and every time we go in with multiple candidates and then have them step out fo the room so we can speak about them freely without them hearing who said what. More often then not this gets rather brutal and theres always one person who sneaks a recording device in which in turn gets back to those who should not hear things. Feelings get hurt, friendships get ruined, etc....

As a person who is putting myself up there, honestly, I know someone will have something that they want to say about me.  If we're keeping it all secretive as usual, then I'll respect that, and I won't ask my husband and friends what was said about me behind closed doors.  However, it's my hope that any person who has something negative to say about me would stand up and ask their question to me directly so that I can have a chance at response.  If a person isn't comfortable with speaking in public, or just isn't comfortable with saying these things directly to me, if people pass messages discreetly to Peter, and he asks them, it still gives a chance for those of us standing up there to give a defense.  And as a person running for board position, I should be able to effectively manage myself on how I take criticism, especially when making myself an open target for it.

Also, you're going to have an impossible time banning all recording devices as most cell phones have a recording feature.  Believe me, if someone wants to do it, they'll find a way or they'll just ask someone what was said.  There's never going to be a safe way to make sure that information doesn't get out to someone who wasn't supposed to hear it.

[staze]

Also, you're going to have an impossible time banning all recording devices as most cell phones have a recording feature.  Believe me, if someone wants to do it, they'll find a way or they'll just ask someone what was said.  There's never going to be a safe way to make sure that information doesn't get out to someone who wasn't supposed to hear it.

Vallie,

I totally agree with this. While I wouldn't BAN outside recording, I would ask that recording not happen outside an official one, or that as Tom said, recording cease when the private discussion begins.

let me be blunt. I have beenm with the con since 2004 and have attended the elections each and every year. Each and every time we go in with multiple candidates and then have them step out fo the room so we can speak about them freely without them hearing who said what. More often then not this gets rather brutal and theres always one person who sneaks a recording device in which in turn gets back to those who should not hear things. Feelings get hurt, friendships get ruined, etc....

Peter, I'm actually favoring the status quo (e.g. having the candidates leave so that people are more able to speak freely).

I figured that the change wouldn't go into effect until the vote of 2009

The original intent was for it to go into effect for this board election, in which we elect the board of 2009.  However, if people push it back further, or someone specifically makes a motion that we don't put it into effect until after the current election, and the majority rules in favor of that, then it will be put off until the election for 2010's directors.  (or if people vote no altogether, then it'll just be quashed)

And yes, this motion(s) would take effect immediately should it pass. The board has already discussed the legal issues (You cannot amend the bylaws to shorten someone's term, as would happen to Dawn and/or I should the motion pass), and we have decided that should they pass we will either/both resign immediately, so as the newly elected Vice President/Secretary can take office immediately rather than waiting until the board elections meeting at which time our terms would expire anyway. Otherwise, the incoming person wouldn't take office until after the board elections meeting, or the board would be forced to wait until that meeting to cast it's votes for the amendment.

Barring someone motioning to table the motion again, everyone will know the outcome of the amendment before the elections start. =)

Thanks!

[RemSaverem]

Sigh.

I'm sad to say that I've been feeling a little disheartened by this entire process.

IMHO, there is no need for an air of antagonism, suspicion, or drama. And no benefit in anything that unnecessarily fosters such.

I hope everyone can remember that we are a convention, a group of people volunteering a ton of time for a ton of people to have a ton of fun. Sometimes people get along like a family. Sometimes people get along like a business. Sometimes people quibble. Ho hum. It's not unexpected. Virtually anything that could come up --short of anything violent and/or criminal-- is something we should be able to contend with amicably and smoothly, either as friends, as professionals, or ideally, as both.

Yes, there probably are people who will not comply with the logical and reasonable requests to refrain, for the good of the order, from unauthorized recordings and disclosures. Sigh.

Yes, there probably are people who will try to forward personal agendas, at the potential expense of the good of the convention, through the elections process, including or perhaps especially in regards to opportunities to safely air concerns. Sigh.

Separate from the above, there may be people who have legitimate concerns who would be too intimidated to reveal them unless some modicum of privacy were accorded them.

It's much less important to me, personally, whether someone can face criticism when put on the spot -- an impressive ability, but one that is not and should not be a prerequisite for at least some of the more background roles such as Secretary and Treasurer -- than whether anyone who may know something pertinent to whether or not someone is a valid and worthy candidate (e.g., a conflict of interest, a personal harrassment, whatnot) is free to speak privately.

For multiple reasons, I believe that, in addition to what Staze is referring to as the status quo, there should be a set-aside time before and/or during the meeting where at least one founder (or other meeting facilitator) is discretely available for private input somewhere other than in front of everyone in the election room.

IMHO, ideally there could be an announcement, here or somewhere, that maybe founders (or other meeting facilitators) could be available, online via PM via these forums between now and the election, for any private info that someone genuinely feels afraid to express in front of a group and/or the candidate.....

I pray that there isn't anything of that magnitude that anyone would need to disclose. I do not have any reason to believe that anyone will have anything of that magnitude to disclose about anyone else. But if there is, it would be much better for it to be considered as a factor prior the election rather than a powder keg that could emerge later.

Sigh.

Thank you in advance, Peter, for opening threads for the candidates for Vice Chair and Secretary to introduce themselves and for job descriptions (and perhaps prerequisites?) to be clarified. IMHO there would also be value in the same being extended to the positions that are outside the proposal.

[Hawkeye]

And yes, this motion(s) would take effect immediately should it pass. The board has already discussed the legal issues (You cannot amend the bylaws to shorten someone's term, as would happen to Dawn and/or I should the motion pass), and we have decided that should they pass we will either/both resign immediately, so as the newly elected Vice President/Secretary can take office immediately rather than waiting until the board elections meeting at which time our terms would expire anyway.

How do you plan to handle things if the secretary/vice president positions stay board appointed?  I know it would be up to the new board, but is there any idea of how quickly you will try to get the positions filled provided you feel there are decent candidates?

[staze]

within 2-3 weeks has been the norm... but then, the norm only stands for last year. It would be up to the incoming board/chair to set that date... until that point, the current secretary and vice president would continue to serve (unless they were to resign). So, there wouldn't be a vacancy.

As for electing those incoming board positions, I believe we will continue to have it be decided by the 5 newly elected staff board members, and the 4 board elected, outgoing, board members would not vote.

[TomtheFanboy]

Can we get an order of events? Not just the order of positions that we will be voting for but also the propositions.

I think we should get the proposition to split done first, then vote on the proposition (possibly multiple) to change the Vice Chair and Secretary into staff voted positions. That way the nominees for these two positions would know whether or not they'll be speaking at the end of the meeting.

<Sentence removed by Moderator 9/29/2008 10:46pm to Memory Hole>...
 Not that I really expect much discussion to go on, but it would be a nice gesture and a place for us to start asking them questions. If the vote passes then we wouldn't have people complaining about "not knowing the candidates" or having time to speak. The campaigning could be done already.

[valliegirl]

Not to personally be "antagonistic", but Tom does have a point.

The elections are now officially less than two weeks away.  I know Peter wanted to do research on the proposal with the people suggesting it, but we're getting too close to go time.  You said you were concerned that the people running weren't being given enough time to prepare, but you're (plural) the ones taking the precious time away from them.

[DancingTofu]

What bothers me is that there isn't a thread where we can bring up questions for the candidates of ALL the board-elected positions.

Just because we aren't electing them shouldn't mean we should be severed from the process altogether.  This is the kind of exclusion that has made an issue of even having board-elected positions.  If the new board doesn't know what the staff are concerned about regarding board-elected positions, how are they able to represent us accurately?

[RemSaverem]

With all due respect, I don't think there is anyone stopping anyone from starting their own such threads for questioning anyone they want to question-- nor from PM'ing inquiries to any of said candidates (other than that some of them, such as perhaps Jaki's mom, might not be on the forums, or at least their forum names might not be listed with their legal names). And for that matter, so far as I know, no one is stopping any of those candidates from coming forward with self-introductions, and with their perceptions of their intended job descriptions and their perceived prerequisites they've accomplished that qualify them. Peter and Ryan aren't the only people who could start these dialogues.

And of course, anyone who feels they don't know enough about the candidates, the job descriptions, or the prerequisites that are (or should be) in place for them, can always choose to either (a) not vote for the proposal to render them staff-elected positions, or (b) vote for the proposal, then not vote in the election even if it does pass, or (c) re-vamp the proposal such that it would not go into effect until the following year.

[valliegirl]

With all due respect, I don't think there is anyone stopping anyone from starting their own such threads for questioning anyone they want to question--

YES There is.

You apparently didn't see/don't remember what happened a few weeks ago when Tom started a thread of his own for general q/a before all of this went up.  Staze stated he does not want unofficial threads opened up by other parties, and Tom's thread had to be locked and discarded. 

As for the rest of it, yes we can pm the persons privately, and yes, they can prepare on their own.  And they should be if they haven't yet.  As a matter of fact, this should be happening for the candidates with threads as well, as there are some really pressing issues that aren't even being discussed in threads.  All of the candidates should have prepared stump speeches for the meeting itself and be thinking of things that could be asked on the spot.

However, opening up a thread allows people to read over everything and get to know who they're voting for without getting directly involved.  If you look at the Operations thread, there's 55 replies and over 800 views. 

The positions we want information opened up for are positions that may become staff elected if this proposition goes through.  Peter has already stated HIMSELF that he's worried we're not allowing people time for the public to get to know these candidates and their credentials. 

We want for people to be able to make an informed decision.  Yes they can prepare on their own, but we want information publicly displayed, just like it is for all the other candidates.

And of course, anyone who feels they don't know enough about the candidates, the job descriptions, or the prerequisites that are (or should be) in place for them, can always choose to either (a) not vote for the proposal to render them staff-elected positions, or (b) vote for the proposal, then not vote in the election even if it does pass, or (c) re-vamp the proposal such that it would not go into effect until the following year.

Ok, well, we've already put off this vote once.  People wanted to take more time so that they could think it through, and have more information about how changing the way these positions are elected would effect the con, knowing full well it would put off the vote until elections.  This is exactly the reason why I voted not to put off the vote. 

The point is these threads should have been opened up with all the others.  The fact that they haven't isn't a fault of the proposal.

[staze]

okay, come on now people...

We're working on the threads for Secretary and Vice President. <Sentence removed by Moderator 9/29/2008 11:01pm to Memory Hole> it's simply the fact that the person that has been doing all of this (Peter) has been extremely busy getting ready for the influx of students coming in today. Worst case, I'll get it going.

As for the rest of the board elected positions... we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

We'll have threads up for them (Secretary and VP) by tomorrow evening, as I said in another thread.

Sorry for the delay... I too have been quite busy preparing for this week. Working at a University during the summer is basically several months of getting crap done that you couldn't get done the year before, then a mad dash in late September to get stuff ready for the term to start. it's not an excuse, but it is an attempt to explain why there was a flush of activity from Peter and I, then we kinda dropped off. *shrugs* soon people, soon. =)

[RemSaverem]

Vallie, I'm not opposed to these threads; I actively have been proposing these threads. (Including in PMs.)
I've been saying that I don't think people will have enough information to vote on these positions -- not only in the absence of the ability to know which "recommended" individuals are actually interested in running, but just as essentially, in the absence of the ability to know **what the people would have to do if you elected them** i.e. concrete job descriptions with concrete prerequisites.

Opening votes just to open votes isn't really of appeal to me. Personally I think it would've been great if everything related to this proposal could have been wrapped up before the con-- but absolutely not at the expense of the con, which trying to deal with it at the very last meeting before the con could have resulted in, somewhat, had it not been capped and mostly handled online....

[modab]

Sorry I didn't post the threads over the weekend like I said I would. I got reasons, but no excuses, so I won't say anything else. Anyway, Vice Chair and Secretary positions are up now. Please let those "nominated" know.
I have not received a reply yet from Radien, who I believe brought the motion forward the first time. Someone interested in the motion should contact him, or take on this motion themselves, otherwise the vote may not happen. I'm just in charge of the election, not any votes before-hand, so it's really not my business.

valliegirl was right, there was a request to wait for official threads.

I removed an antagonistic sentence from a post and a response to that post, and they are in the Memory Hole so anyone who can view those posts are wondering why. It did not fit the tone of this thread.

[valliegirl]

Thank you for getting them posted.

[Radien]

My apologies for taking awhile to get back to Modab.  His request for info was in the proposal thread and I missed it (though I had been checking my PMs).

I too have been pretty stressed since the convention ended, but I'll take Modab's cue and can any excuses.  If any of you need me, please don't hesitate to PM!

[TomtheFanboy]

Got some questions about proxy voting.

So we type up a form saying Party A gives Party B the right to vote on Party A's behalf at the Kumoricon General Election on October 11th.
Party A signs off on the whole thing.
It would be good to have a notary sign it as well if possible.
It then needs to be turned in to Ryan Stasel before the elections so he can verify authenticity.

Correct?

Now my question is about Party B. Do they have to sign the document as well?
Do they need to be a staff member?
If they are a staff member they still get their own vote right? They just fill out two ballots.

Can a specific person serve as the proxy of more than one individual?
Can a person that is running for a board position serve as a voting proxy?

[modab]

Got some questions about proxy voting.

So we type up a form saying Party A gives Party B the right to vote on Party A's behalf at the Kumoricon General Election on October 11th.
Party A signs off on the whole thing.
It would be good to have a notary sign it as well if possible.
It then needs to be turned in to Ryan Stasel before the elections so he can verify authenticity.

Correct?

Correct. Ryan will also need to phone Party A just before or during the election to verify, so they should have a phone number.

Now my question is about Party B. Do they have to sign the document as well?

Don't know, will replace this with answer soon.

Do they need to be a staff member?

Don't know, will replace this with answer soon.

If they are a staff member they still get their own vote right? They just fill out two ballots.

Yes, they do get their own vote still.

Can a specific person serve as the proxy of more than one individual?

Yes.

Can a person that is running for a board position serve as a voting proxy?

Yes.

[RemSaverem]

Personally I would consider it a quite obvious, big conflict of interest for someone who is running for a Board position to be the person who is casting multiple ballots.

As someone with very little spending money who lives far from Portland, and particularly as someone who believes in minimizing financial barriers to participating in the con,  I agree with proxy voting in concept, and I agree with making it a genuinely viable option-- so long as that conflict of interest is minimized.

If there is anything that would constitute "vote stacking," someone who is running for a position going around canvassing folks they know can't afford time off work or gas money or child care (or even those they know don't really care much about the election, but are friends with them personally and willing to help them personally), and saying "hey let me vote for you" so they can vote repeatedly for themselves, that would be "vote stacking". So, since the process is still being determined, I propose that anyone other than the actual candidates (including those for positions presently board-elected that might become staff-elected) should be eligible to serve as proxies.

[TomtheFanboy]

Awesome, thanks modab!

[valliegirl]

Per proxy voting, I would expect that there would be a level of trust between the two people entering such an agreement as well as discussion beforehand so that both individuals have an expectation of how the vote should be cast.  If you're providing an individual with the right to speak for you, you should have a trust that they will represent your interests accurately.  Otherwise, why would you give that power to that individual?

[modab]

Personally I would consider it a quite obvious, big conflict of interest for someone who is running for a Board position to be the person who is casting multiple ballots.

As someone with very little spending money who lives far from Portland, and particularly as someone who believes in minimizing financial barriers to participating in the con,  I agree with proxy voting in concept, and I agree with making it a genuinely viable option-- so long as that conflict of interest is minimized.

If there is anything that would constitute "vote stacking," someone who is running for a position going around canvassing folks they know can't afford time off work or gas money or child care (or even those they know don't really care much about the election, but are friends with them personally and willing to help them personally), and saying "hey let me vote for you" so they can vote repeatedly for themselves, that would be "vote stacking". So, since the process is still being determined, I propose that anyone other than the actual candidates (including those for positions presently board-elected that might become staff-elected) should be eligible to serve as proxies.

I think the whole concept of one person casting votes for multiple people is iffy, but that's how we're going to run it this year, since we legally have to allow vote by proxy for this year. Vote stacking could be performed by anyone, not necessarily the candidate. If I was running for office, I could get my wife to handle the multiple votes, or one of my close friends, and I trust them enough to vote for me. In either case, it would be just as bad as the conditions you mentioned. But since I'm not going to make exceptions for spouses or friends, it doesn't seem to be a big difference to not make an exception for the actual candidate himself.

Basically, I don't see how your proposed solution solves your problem, so it just ends up being busy work for me.

[RemSaverem]

Okay, granted, basically it's true, if someone is going to act unethically, if they can't do it themselves, they'll find someone else to do it for them, and if no one is going to act unethically, then it's a moot point, so *shrugs*

[BigGuy]

Is it still  only staff can vote in the elections by proxy or in person?

[staze]

Is it still  only staff can vote in the elections by proxy or in person?

only staff may vote at the elections... either by proxy, or in person.