Obviously, it was a total waste of the ECs time and everybody else's time to get those voting lists updated, so the EC could conduct a poll to see who the voters in the SE/MA region wanted for their CC representative. It didn't matter who they wanted, as the AB made their choice and to hell with the choice of the voters in the SEMA region. I don't understand how you can pass over the leading vote getter in the poll. The AB has the right to appoint. They don't need a poll of the people. So why have a poll if they are going to ignore it anyway? David On Fri, 9 May 2003, Richard (Isaiah) Harrison wrote: > With 9 members voting and 1 member not voting, the results are as follows: > > Bettie Wood 3 > Heather DeGeorge 8 > Angie Rayfield 6 > Abstain 1 > > Heather DeGeorge and Angie Rayfield are appointed to the Advisory Board to > fill the vacant SEMA Rep positions. > > Congratulations to them and thank you to all the candidates, to Larry > Stephens, to the Election Committee and to the members who participated in > the poll. > > -Isaiah > > > ==== BOARD Mailing List ==== > "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." > Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) > David W. Morgan dmorgan@efn.org Honolulu Hawaii SC - TXGenWeb http://www.rootsweb.com/~txgenweb/ FM - http://www.rootsweb.com/~usgenweb/tx/txfiles.htm ** http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~dmorgan/

--Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ) Content-type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7882577D; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT At 03:07 PM 5/9/2003 -1000, David W. Morgan wrote: >Obviously, it was a total waste of the ECs time and everybody else's >time to get those voting lists updated, so the EC could conduct a >poll to see who the voters in the SE/MA region wanted for their CC >representative. It didn't matter who they wanted, as the AB made their >choice and to hell with the choice of the voters in the SEMA region. > >I don't understand how you can pass over the leading vote getter in the >poll. The AB has the right to appoint. They don't need a poll of the >people. So why have a poll if they are going to ignore it anyway? I hesitate to make a comment, since I'm kind of in the middle of things at this point, and to be honest, I'm not an authority on what the AB was thinking at the time -- after all, I wasn't on the board then and not privy to all of the discussion. But I believe that when the board tried to initially make the appointments, a number of objections were raised that no one had bothered to ask the CCs for their opinion. (Or perhaps it would be more precise to say when some individual board members tried to move ahead with the appointment process.) But because the by-laws specifically state that the AB is to appoint the replacement if an elected member of the board (other than the NC) cannot complete his/her term, a special election or binding vote would be improper. In a way, I kind of feel like the board was caught between a rock and a hard place -- the by-laws prohibit holding a special election, but public opinion (or some very vocal parts of it anyway) protested an appointment. Perhaps having the opinion poll was seen as a way of splitting the difference? Obviously not a successful one, though, considering the reaction! Would it have helped to be more specific right up-front that this was not, and could not (according to the by-laws), be an actual vote? Let everyone one that the AB was interested in the opinions (at least interested enough to go to the effort of taking the poll) of the reps in the SEMA region, but that the AB would not be bound by them, and would still make the appointments as they saw fit? Or would it have been better to have simply gone about the business of making appointments and ignored the complaints? I'm not simply asking rhetorical questions. I can't imagine that an AB member will never again resign, which means that the AB is likely to be faced with the same issues again, and absent a change in the by-laws, would be dealing with the same problems. Angie Rayfield NCGenWeb Project --Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-7882577D Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.476 / Virus Database: 273 - Release Date: 4/24/2003 --Boundary_(ID_kV7g5JnyXYritrzhorxqDQ)--