Author Topic: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion  (Read 179874 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Radien

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #200 on: August 21, 2008, 01:15:09 am »
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here.  Before I jump to conclusions or start filling in the blanks my self, please elaborate. 

I'm saying that in the rush to sweep problems under the rug to make things easier in the face of each coming convention, a lot of problems (especially disharmony between various staff) are left to fester, unaddressed.  Sometimes this "touch and go" approach seems to be done to simulate professionalism, but I think it only works to hide some problems from view while allowing them to continue underneath (there are ways this can happen whether the director is removed or not).


The board has exercised the power this year, so I'm not sure what the actions of a past board in the non-removal of a board member would say about this or a future board being willing to exercise it.

I was specifically referring to removal scenarios where the two-week time frame would be an issue. The only major argument that's been made about removal so far is that the staff-assisted removal process is too difficult and takes too long (two weeks minimum, as opposed to just one week for the Board, if all goes well). In other words, is the urgency there? Personally, I haven't been convinced that there is that much added urgency in dealing with any particular Secretary (or VP).

Industry vs. fan is really not the point nor relevant to this. Kumoricon, along with Sakura-Con (mentioning them because we have imitated them in many ways, and chosen not to in some other ways), are among the more open cons. Many fan-based cons have a permanent board, or a parent board above the convention officers, or a permanent chair/owner, which Kumoricon does not except for the founders who have almost no voting rights. For example, Fanime, one of the most "fan-based" cons on the spectrum of fan to industry, has a permanent board which appoints (board-elects) the chair, who then has complete hiring and firing authority for all staff below him or her. Kumoricon has consistently moved in the direction of being more open over the years, from merging the Altonimbus board and Kumoricon executives into one board, to removing the previously-permanent voting rights of the founders, to amending the bylaws to make clear that amendments must be approved by both the board and staff (this was previously ambiguous and it might have been interpreted as a power reserved only for the board), to opening staff nominations for the 2008 year for 3 out of the 4 board-elected positions.

Then I daresay I'd be even less interested in staffing at cons if we used one of those systems, because it's basically a sitting monarchy that grants freedoms by benevolence. Such a system may be common for conventions, but the fan convention phenomenon is very young in the greater scheme of things.

Certain other non-profit organizations, on the other hand, have been around for multiple generations, and there's a lot we should be learning from them. I realize we've been making strides, but there have also been some areas that have stagnated just because no one was appointed or recruited for the task.


Asking the staff to attend a special meeting to vote for removal is one of the most demoralizing and draining things for the staff as a whole to have to go through. This isn't a question of being industry-oriented or for-profit vs. fan run--it's a question of does the whole staff necessarily need to be involved in this type of decision.

Actually, the question is whether we want to be involved in this type of decision for Secretary and Vice Chair. We're effectively asking whether those two positions are special cases.

The staff is already effectively involved in that process for the five staff-elected positions, it's just that nobody has ever tried to remove a staff-elected director. So really, to be fair, we have almost no firsthand basis for evaluating the process. Personally, I think the way we manage our meetings has a HUGE part of it. At last Saturday's meeting, about 15-18 people got to have a say in less than 45 minutes time.  When people only have two minutes to speak, they're very careful not to be redundant.  I really appreciated the way Saturday's discussion was run, and it proves that staff input can be organized and efficient.

My comparison of industry to fan base is an ideology, and you don't need to agree with it...it's just one way of looking at the bigger picture, and this would only be one aspect of it, regardless.


Edit:

Radien, time to update your signature again. Maybe suggest participation in the elections come October?

To tell the truth, I think I'd best bring it back to my signature right after the convention. I try to put as much effort into enjoying the convention as staffing it, and right now I want to remember what I'm looking forward to. :)

So, back it goes to my humble "costume progress" sig. ;)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 01:23:46 am by Radien »
A member of Eugene Cosplayers. Come hang out with us.

Kumori Con 2010 Cosplays:

Link (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess)
Apollo Justice

Offline RemSaverem

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #201 on: August 21, 2008, 01:28:52 pm »
*Edit*
When I wrote the below, I'd only read the message to which I was replying.
Having now read the others, I add:
I've been here since before the 2003 con, and I had no idea there had been "significant theft". That would have influenced my feelings on certain situations long ago.
I agree that people should only have one significant role per con--EXCEPT that I believe that people holding staff positions should still be allowed to be panelists if they can manage both. Example: Guy runs AMVs, but still also hosts the Religion in Anime and Manga panel.
Perhaps there may be a way that, without there being too much negative spin or publicity generated, a handful of staff trying in earnest to help with bylaw revision could be made aware of the specifics of the circumstances under which those who have previously had to be involuntarily exited (and/or regarding those who left voluntarily but had acted with malfeasance, embezzled, or whatnot)? Perhaps signing confidentiality agreements not to purvey the information to those outside the bylaw revision process or even to those outside the board?

Now on to my reply to Staze's detailed reply to my prior post:
Perfect answer, thanks!

It might be easier to find a time for an online chat (yahoo messenger? Gmail chat?) than to find "spare time" at the con at the same time.

The pieces of info that I didn't have previously are that the Secretary, and the Founders, already have the status of  voice but no vote. I'm honestly surprised that their presence within the Board is controversial or that there's a felt need to have a staff vote for Secretary, given that. That's why there was no qualitative difference for you to find between a couple of my options, below.

I, too, would like to keep everything as logical, streamlined, and efficient as possible, while addressing whatever concerns are out there.

I'm not sure what your acronym "P.D." refers to. Perhaps a "Personnel Director"? I would be in favor if the Board were to create such a position--though I can already imagine there would be internal dialogue whether that should be a board-elected position, a staff-elected position, or a position appointed by the chair and ratified by the board!
(I would support the idea of a personnel director for staff, that was staff-elected, and another one for the board, that was board-elected or that was chair-appointed and board-ratified. This would be the typical arrangement in a larger organization using  a continuous quality control approach. However, there is a balance between becoming more efficient and feeling more micro-managed.)

I'm totally glad to help. Truth be told, it is MUCH easier to design organizational structures in a linear fashion when first building an organization than it is once it's already developed entrenched patterns and constituencies, and at times, biases or misunderstandings amongst them. I should've spoken up way back when the founding meetings were happening. (I was at Josh's for some of the first meetings, but barely knew everyone at the time; I didn't let people know all my experiences in founding organizations and structures and being on boards, because I was so new to anime and Tunac.)

Yes, None of the Above should be a voting option, as should No Confidence be for those running unopposed, especially but not exclusively if as an incumbent.

When staff have input that would help the board, having their input could be incorporated by written reports (mailed, faxed, or emailed), or by Skype (etc.), if they are geographically/financially unable to attend in person. It's possible that, even if it is just momentary and confined to specific topics of their expertise, that having staff participate periodically in board meetings will help somewhat.

Are any minutes from any board and/or founders meetings archived for non-board staff to be able to read? I don't know if that would answer whatever the concerns are for "transparency"? Personally I think that's a somewhat overutilized term that means different things for different people. Also we might need to consider whether board-level positions constitute, in the eyes of the law, positions covered as though they were paid employees, in terms of whether exit disclosures are protracted by law (i.e. whether the board would be legally prohibited from sharing with staff the circumstances leading to the involuntary discharge or even the voluntary departure of a board officer)??

Jaz/Staze:
As someone who lives far away and usually doesn't have spare $, I too would be appreciative if there could be put into place, and advertised, some formal criteria for voting proxies.

Among the considerations:
--handwritten only, or typed but hand-signed?
--handed in in person only, or handed in by email (an upload with a real signature) or fax okay?
--notarized? witnessed? (good questions, Jaz!)
--okay for other votes, but not elections? or also for elections?
--by how far in advance do they need to be handed in?
--will the secretary need to verify their legitimacy? e.g., through a follow-up contact and/or comparison to signature on staff form?


At this time, there are no official requirements. I hope to have these addressed in the new bylaws, specifically to severely limit Proxy voting as it's just a huge quagmire. The law is all we have at this point, which is to say, a signed affidavit giving the right for a person to cast your vote must be delivered to the secretary (me) prior to any vote. That right will be voided upon any time where you request the right be removed, or if you attend a meeting and cast a vote yourself.

Staze: I'm with you on the following points:
(a) There exists the possibility that some positions could be rendered as having official voice-but-no-vote status on the Board.
(b) There will be times and issues wherein the individuals who have the most crucial data on which to base certain fiscal and fiduciary decisions are the Secretary, the Treasurer, and/or the Facilities Director.
(c) Therefore, potentially scary financial consequences could emerge if the Secretary, Treasurer, and/or Facilities Director positions are demoted to not having votes on the Board.
Not just financial. The secretary is basically the clearing house of all the con business. Minutes from board meetings, Minutes from Founder meetings (should they happen), contacts (for potentially unannounced events, etc), insurance info, tax info, etc.

The treasurer basically knows all the finances, and should they be unqualified, or malicious, they could ruin the whole organization faster than anyone else.

I'm not going to touch on the FL, because it's a sticky subject given this year's drama.

There are already non-voting members on the board... the founders. It had been discussed at several points to remove the vote of the secretary... it was in a draft of the bylaws from last year as a compromise between two sides of the issue (have the secretary be elected by the staff, and have the secretary be elected by the board. it ended up board elected, with no vote). *shrugs* I don't think voting is the issue here... as I said before, it seems painfully obvious that transparency is.


However:
(c) realistically most likely would only come true if the other directors, who are staff-elected (or will be, if the proposed change around VP passes), either:
 (1) fail to bother to become aware of the potential dire consequences of their votes before voting--which would constitute negligence on their part;
(2) fail to care about the potential dire consequences before voting--which would constitute malfeasance on their part;
(3) are insufficiently informed by the Secretary, Treasurer, or Facilities Director before their vote, due to disorganization or lack of information gathering by the S,T, and/or FD--which would constitute neglect on the part of the S,T, and/or FD;
(4) and/or are deliberately misinformed by the S, T, or FD--which would constitute malfeasance on the part of the S, T, and/or FD.


I totally don't follow. At this point, it sounds like the only way problems could occur is if the board doesn't take due dilegance and elects a Sec/Treasurer/or FL to the board without knowing whether they're qualified, or have the best interests of the con? Sure, that goes without saying.

Is it possible that any of these 4 major FUBARs could occur? Absolutely.
Should we guard against such? Absolutely.
Is it likely that such could occur? --Not if we've done a good job of researching, documenting, and clarifying
(a) what each job description entails;
(b) prerequisites for each job;
(c) qualifications of each applicant;
(d) the voting process most likely to prevent situations such as the above.
You're describing a PD. Something I've begged and pleaded for from every department for 4 years now.

The (d) item is simple... we just need to make sure those voting know that "none of the above" is a valid option when voting for a position and no qualified candidates are on the ballot.

Given this, imho, what is logically up for debate is which of the following, individually or in combination, is most likely to provide a genuine safeguard:
(a) Maintaining status quo with regard to which positions are staff-elected vs. board elected vs. board or chair appointed;
(b) Maintaining status quo, other than with regard to vice-chair;
(c) Rendering all Board positions staff-elected;
(d) Opening the election portions of Board meetings to staff (for voice but not vote);
(e) Maintaining status quo vis-a-vis elections, but rendering Board-elected and/or Board-appointed positions voice-but-no-vote within the Board.
No positions are board/chair appointed. The only one that's close is Vice chair, but that ultimately is a chair "appointment" with board confirmation... kinda like saying congress elects Supreme Court justices. Sure, the Executive Appoints, but Congress has to approve that appointment.

In my opinion, option c is a bad idea... for reasons I've given. Option d is workable, but would require some planning to get it to work. Option e I don't understand at all, or rather, don't get how it's different than option d.

Other hypotheticals within the realm of possibility (though I can't presently speak to their plausibility nor to their desirability) would include:
(f) Have all Board meetings that are not Executive Sessions open to attendance by non-Board staff:
(1) anyone who can make it, or
(2) specific staff invited by the Board for specific reasons;
(g) Within those meetings, have:
(1)  those non-Board staff eligible to have voice but no vote; and/or
(2)  those non-Board staff eligible to have vote but no voice;

Sorry to cut out the description, but I wanted to make the post fit on one page. =) Yes, you bring up a good point, and ultimately, one that's entirely within the rules we have now. Anyone can be brought into the board meetings by the board directors. We had a non-director sit in on our last meeting because (s)he had information that needed to be shared with the board. Jaki would be more than welcome to bring in Mark. We may ask him to leave after he gives his report, but he's more than welcome to sit in and give his report. That's entirely at the will of the board.

Hm, I guess I can be relied upon to complicate discussions to some degree, LOL!

Indeed. But you basically have done something I'm unable to do on my own. Create a conversation with regards to these issues. Sure, I could sit here and stream of consciousness all the stuff that we've gone through while talking bylaws over the years, but that would cover a lot more than just these issues. By bringing up these points, you help focus the issue. I'd be happy to talk about this more at con should you/I find the time... or, perhaps we should look at having an informal meeting at con to discuss some of these issues with a larger body than just myself answering questions. =)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2008, 01:40:15 pm by RemSaverem »
Ellen. 2003: Fanfic panelist & contest judge.
2004: Beta Station Coord. 2005: Fan Creation Station Coord.;pre-event assistant to the con chair.2006: Fanfic Mgr/C.S. Coord.
2007, 8, 9, 10: Fan Creation Manager. 2011: Writing & Editing Coord (Publicity).

Offline melchizedek

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1193
    • Don't play with fire
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #202 on: August 22, 2008, 10:14:18 am »
Well I watched some of the debate, and to me the most solid argument to keep things they way they are was ease of removal.  If someone is hurting the con, they need to be stopped.  I can see how this might be demoralizing.  However, running an event for 3000+ fans isn't easy.  I don't think anyone has that expectation.   

As for the quickness of removal, I think it's a non-issue.  The board has already used it's power to suspend board members.  So, suppose a staff elected board member needs to be removed but only the board knows about it. 

They can:

1.)  Suspend said board member
2.)  Put an item in the agenda for the next monthly meeting when it is sent out beforehand
3.)  Make a case at that meeting in the alloted amount of time
4.)  Have a staff vote.

I think the most demoralizing thing would be having to have another election for a replacement.  Not the removal itself.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2008, 10:18:31 am by melchizedek »
Yaoi crossplay... is actually Yuri.

Offline kalira

  • Chibi
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #203 on: August 24, 2008, 12:52:52 pm »
Quote
Well I watched some of the debate, and to me the most solid argument to keep things they way they are was ease of removal.  If someone is hurting the con, they need to be stopped.  I can see how this might be demoralizing.  However, running an event for 3000+ fans isn't easy.  I don't think anyone has that expectation.   

As for the quickness of removal, I think it's a non-issue.  The board has already used it's power to suspend board members.  So, suppose a staff elected board member needs to be removed but only the board knows about it.

They can:

1.)  Suspend said board member
2.)  Put an item in the agenda for the next monthly meeting when it is sent out beforehand
3.)  Make a case at that meeting in the alloted amount of time
4.)  Have a staff vote.

I think the most demoralizing thing would be having to have another election for a replacement.  Not the removal itself.

The board members that were suspended were asked to of there own accord.  We can't force them to step down for any amount of time.  Had they said no, we had not power to stop them from doing anything.  As they were both board appointed the only thing we had to back us up is do it or we will call a vote to remove you. 

Offline DancingTofu

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #204 on: August 25, 2008, 08:44:43 pm »
Those huge long posts are getting really long!  I think I'm finally caught up, but can we start making a habit of putting summaries with our really long statements and outlining them as such please?
moderators gonna moderate </shrug>

Offline Mr_Phelps

  • Sailor Scout
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #205 on: August 27, 2008, 07:59:40 am »
We had a serious time crunch in the last meeting that meant we couldn't devote more than 30 minutes to debate.  This was driven by the fact that we were so close to con and still had tons of work to get done.  The next meeting in October we will have more time to discuss the motions before we get down to the actual elections.  Just bear in mind that we also need to get the elections done in a timely manner and not drag things out.

My proposal is that we have an hour to discuss the motion, though we should be prepared to split the motion into two questions.  As was pointed out by the parlimentarian, we can seperate the motion into a vote to make the vice chair staff elected and a vote to make the secretary staff elected.  This would be the most efficient way to move forward.

At the beginning of the meeting we will seek to split the motion and then start with the motion for vice chair.  From what I have seen and heard this vote should be able to occur without tying up too much time.  So we will limit it to no more than 15 minutes.  The motion for secretary looks be more involved and we can spend 45 minutes on just that topic.  Any time that we save from the vice chair discussion can be rolled into the secretary discussion.

Any position can have people nominated for it.  For the positions that are being considered for turning over to staff voting, these nominees should be ready to make thier case to the staff at the elections.  If the motion for either position passes it is this election that those will take place in. 

One of the things we can do to expedite this is to discuss the positions seperately here in the forums and let both sides develop summaries of thier positions that can become part of the motion and help frame the questions during the debate.

This convention has dedicated staff who are at the heart of making Kumoricon the fun and unique convention that it is.  It is the voting rights that the staff earn that make these elections one of the most important meetings of the year.  Make your voice and your vote count!
Avatar is "Othar Tryggvassen" from GirlGeniusOnline.net

Offline DancingTofu

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #206 on: September 05, 2008, 02:25:21 am »
Should I initiate the motion to sever, or will that be handled by someone else?
moderators gonna moderate </shrug>

Offline Mr_Phelps

  • Sailor Scout
  • **
  • Posts: 140
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #207 on: September 05, 2008, 07:41:00 am »
I believe you would be the logical choice.   :)

Avatar is "Othar Tryggvassen" from GirlGeniusOnline.net

Offline Deviant Spider

  • Chibi
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #208 on: September 05, 2008, 11:36:56 am »
Should I initiate the motion to sever, or will that be handled by someone else?

Personally consitering I saw LOTS of that Idea going around I think it will probably be a good Idea. And yeah since you proposed it at the last meeting I would say 'thats all you man!" unless someone gets to it first. lol.
2008 Adult Content Coordinator
2009 Adult Content Coordinator
Onyxspider@gmail.com

Offline DancingTofu

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #209 on: September 05, 2008, 11:38:04 pm »
Alrighty.  Now, I wonder if I should bring an axe for symbolic purposes. . . ;P

Old Business comes before New Business, right?  I want to bring up my idea of having those 4-page Staff Guidebooks at some point too, and I'm not sure when that should come up.
moderators gonna moderate </shrug>

Offline Deviant Spider

  • Chibi
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #210 on: September 06, 2008, 03:26:03 pm »
Alrighty.  Now, I wonder if I should bring an axe for symbolic purposes. . . ;P

Old Business comes before New Business, right?  I want to bring up my idea of having those 4-page Staff Guidebooks at some point too, and I'm not sure when that should come up.

And once again THANK YOU FOR THAT AWESOME IDEA! David and I think its a great idea. I would suggest it to be brought up after elections though.
2008 Adult Content Coordinator
2009 Adult Content Coordinator
Onyxspider@gmail.com

Offline RemSaverem

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #211 on: September 16, 2008, 01:13:36 pm »
For the record I have been contemplating this thread quite a bit. I now feel as follows:
Definitely there should be 2 separate motions.
As for Secretary: When I thought it was only someone who took meeting minutes, I didn't see any reason for it not to be staff-elected. Now that I comprehend the magnitude of potential fiduciary responsibility, and the minimal amount of interaction with non-Board portions of the convention, I do not see a need for this to be a staff-elected position, and unless some minimum professional standard were set in terms of credentials, I could forsee potential problems if someone gets elected who is popular, or persuasive, or simply has name recognition on the forums, but who is not actually qualified. The Board needs to be able to trust that Secretary, and Treasurer, are people with superlative (a) professional competence in the requisite capacities and (b) already-demonstrated integrity. I will be voting no on making Secretary staff-elected.

As for Vice Chair--If it were only a position that was a personal assistant to the Chair, I would want the Chair to appoint it, and the Board to only veto if there were evidence the selected person were not qualified in terms of competence or in terms of integrity. But given that I'm hearing that many separate levels of work are entrusted to the position beyond simply being a backup for the Chair, I can see some validity in having this be a staff-elected position.
That is to say, in the absence of a job description, I can't really say whether I feel it will be helpful or a hindrance to have VC be staff-elected. If it's truly an entirely separate position, and a well-defined one, then I could certainly be open to a staff vote on it, but I do not feel attachment to making that be the case.

However, I personally now believe that for this position to be voted upon with any degree whatsoever of meaning:
(1) Those who are presently listed as recommended in the board-elected thread (for vice and secretary) should identify whether or not they are interested in the position.
(2) Forum threads should be present for those two categories, identifying their job descriptions, and allowing candidates to introduce themselves and to be asked questions about what they think their roles would be and how they'd envision fulfilling them, etc.
(3) If there are not presently minimum requirements for each position, the present board should define some for consideration prior to any potential staff vote.
(4) If the Vice Chair becomes a staff-elected position, and the staff-elected VC & Chair do not see eye to eye or do not get along, an outside moderator should be brought in to facilitate dialogue, and this should be done privately in executive session, without involvement of non-board staff.

I've had both positive and negative experiences at all points along the spectra, from rigid hierarchies to radical anarchist collectives to cooperatively owned businesses. The short version is: There is no direct link between the number of people involved in making a decision and the likelihood that it will be the one most beneficial for the whole, most efficient, most trustworthy, etc. But imho there may be a direct link between how hard it is to get anything done, and how appreciated vs. distrusted anyone feels while they try to work for the good of the whole, and the likelihood that they stick around to do it, and enjoy doing it, and feel respected while doing it.

I really enjoy, respect, feel respected by, trust, and feel trusted by, KC as it is. While there may be some benefit, within the board, to looking at which job descriptions fit under which departments, etc., that's something for the board to decide. I currently would rather just steer clear of anything that disrupts that natural flow and joy and growth the con is experiencing. Some modicum of formality and professionalizing of positions is natural with that level of exponential growth. I'm personally comfortable not having to be in the loop about all of it. Perhaps there could be a Board Liason to Staff position, or a Staff Liason to the Board position--sort of like how the City of Eugene has a Chief Information Officer (though don't get me started on how often he used to lie)......

With just under a month to go til elections, I have no idea how much momentum this proposed measure or pair of measures actually has, and I'm not even entirely sure of all the motivations behind it, but I do know that having faith in the Board is helpful, and electing to the Board people in whom we have faith is helpful.

Brainstorming about long-term strategic planning can be a healthy process when it is genuinely undertaken with the good of the whole as the priority, and without factionalizing. Sometimes the best way to move forward in certain circumstances is to find individuals experienced in the fiduciary, legal, pragmatic, and/or mediating aspects of long-term strategic planning processes, who are not looking to become stakeholders, and who can be trusted to uphold confidentiality, who can avail themselves on an as-needed basis for consulting purposes.

[Last paragraph is new today. Preceding paragraphs include substantial revisions.]
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 04:23:34 pm by RemSaverem »
Ellen. 2003: Fanfic panelist & contest judge.
2004: Beta Station Coord. 2005: Fan Creation Station Coord.;pre-event assistant to the con chair.2006: Fanfic Mgr/C.S. Coord.
2007, 8, 9, 10: Fan Creation Manager. 2011: Writing & Editing Coord (Publicity).

Offline valliegirl

  • Catgirl
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
    • http://valliegirl.elite-otaku.net
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #212 on: September 17, 2008, 01:22:54 am »
One thing I want to provide clarity on, all the positions we're discussing are elected positions.  The matter at hand is who elects them.

Specifically, in the case of Vice Chair, I want to make sure everyone knows that Vice Chair is not an "appointed" position, no matter how this vote turns out.  The con chair gets a vote in the matter, but only as much as anyone else does.  Of course, if it's a board elected position, then it's a one out of 5 vote, instead of 1 out of x as it would be with a staff vote, where x is how ever many staff actually show up. 

But none of the Board ELECTED positions are appointed by the chair or any other member of the board.  There is a difference, even if people have been using the terms interchangeably.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2008, 01:24:46 am by valliegirl »
Take a chance 'cause you might grow
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://valliegirl.livejournal.com & http://www.myspace.com/valliegirl1013

Offline modab

  • Founder
  • Sailor Scout
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #213 on: September 21, 2008, 10:34:53 pm »
Anyone who is going to bring a proposition to for the general meeting regarding voting rights, please PM me immediately! I need to know the details, what happened previously, what you expect to happen this meeting, etc. so that I can create appropriate election threads and contingency plans. You know who you are!! The time for discussion is now :-)
Peter Verrey, Founder

Offline Radien

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #214 on: September 30, 2008, 10:03:54 pm »
Okay, PM sent. I'll try to get that business taken care of by this Friday. Hopefully we can touch base soon, Modab.

My apologies for not posting more actively in this thread as of late. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much in the way of posts from incoming staffers who wanted to take advantage of the belayed vote by asking more questions. I hope that this will change now that the election is less than two weeks away.  I find it more appealing to spend time addressing people's concerns than to campaign my own preferences; I know not everyone prefers that mode of functioning.

Valliegirl:

I do agree that it is misleading to use the word "appoint" at all, even for the board-elected positions. I prefer to use the terminology we've been using all along. Even if the board positions end up being effectively appointed (since they prefer to function with consensus whenever possible), it's important to note that it could always end up as a split vote if worse came to worse.

It's a matter of size, really. It's a lot easier to get a consensus in a small group.  Also, the consequences of disharmony between a few members within the board are much worse than they would be between just a few members of the general staff membership.




So, everyone who attended the pre-con meeting: if you voted to belay the vote on this proposition because you wanted to know more about it, now is the time to start asking questions. The more questions we can anticipate before the general election meeting, the more time we will have for new questions and discussion. :)
A member of Eugene Cosplayers. Come hang out with us.

Kumori Con 2010 Cosplays:

Link (The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess)
Apollo Justice

Offline RemSaverem

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #215 on: October 06, 2008, 11:27:44 pm »
To avoid further MISinterpretation, I have removed this post.
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 01:02:05 am by RemSaverem »
Ellen. 2003: Fanfic panelist & contest judge.
2004: Beta Station Coord. 2005: Fan Creation Station Coord.;pre-event assistant to the con chair.2006: Fanfic Mgr/C.S. Coord.
2007, 8, 9, 10: Fan Creation Manager. 2011: Writing & Editing Coord (Publicity).

Offline TomtheFanboy

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
    • Twitter
    • Kumoricon Archives
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #216 on: October 06, 2008, 11:47:36 pm »
Reading a VAST amount of significance to that comment. He being agreeable.

I am glad that you feel that our board of directors is a group that is more likely to argue amongst themselves more than the staff does since that is the examples you brought up. you tell him not to over generalize. I tell you not to attack him for something he said last week and nobody else felt the need to "call him" on.

You make a lot of statements at the end of your rant to tell him to not generalize. I'm telling you not to be so quick to over analyze people's statements.

I'm glad that we can continue to go around in the same circles we were back in the last meeting. It is important to show that those of us that feel strongly about this still feel strongly enough to keep on arguing our points.

Is there anything that can be added to this discussion that is from the people we haven't heard from yet? the people that we put off the vote for?
« Last Edit: October 06, 2008, 11:55:18 pm by TomtheFanboy »
Tom the Fanboy
Passion over Pedantry!
Pocky Club President 2005-2010

Offline RemSaverem

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #217 on: October 06, 2008, 11:53:46 pm »
Under no circumstances would I ***EVER*** have alleged that the present Board was more likely to be contentious than the staff. If anything, how staff treat the Board, and other staff, on the forums would indicate to the contrary. I genuinely trust and love the Board and those Founders who have remained active.

There was absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER negative towards the Board in my post. Quite simply I felt an uninformed and untrue over-generalization had been made, about how easy it is or isn't to build consensus based on the SIZE of a group, and I gave simple examples from my lived 7 and 8 years' experience in 2 settings of consensus-based meetings to demonstrate that. Since the given proposal does nothing to change the size of the board, it was in no way a reflection on the given proposal, let alone a burn on the board, for me to try to say something educational about what can prevent consensus.

Yes, I pointed out that at some meetings with over 100+ consensus came more easily than at some with only 4 people (in a different setting), because in the smaller meeting, people were more attached to their personal agendas. But this was NOT a statement about the Board, and, quite the contrary: the point was that the more people are attached to their agendas, rather than to a common good, THAT is what determines how unlikely consensus is to form, NOT the size of the decision-making body.

Honestly I am considering not even bothering to spend the money and 5 hours in the car to come to the meeting because I just don't want to deal with drama, especially in the form of being taken way the heck out of context. If I could vote over the internet and not drive up I would. It's particularly ironic given that the drama that is alienating me is in a thread in which I was one of the very few people paying attention and going on record as giving (albeit only partial) previous support.

*Shrugs*

Peace. I'm out. Honestly I just can't wait for the meeting to be over.
 
« Last Edit: October 07, 2008, 01:37:06 am by RemSaverem »
Ellen. 2003: Fanfic panelist & contest judge.
2004: Beta Station Coord. 2005: Fan Creation Station Coord.;pre-event assistant to the con chair.2006: Fanfic Mgr/C.S. Coord.
2007, 8, 9, 10: Fan Creation Manager. 2011: Writing & Editing Coord (Publicity).

Offline TomtheFanboy

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 4417
    • Twitter
    • Kumoricon Archives
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #218 on: October 07, 2008, 06:19:37 am »

Peace. I'm out. Honestly I just can't wait for the meeting to be over.
 

I can definitely agree with that.

Staze has laid down the conditions for proxy voting, you could very likely send a signed form up with someone from Eugene who will be attending the meeting. there are several candidates from Eugene so it shouldn't be too hard to find a proxy. It would save you the stress of the trip as well as the stress of the meeting itself.
Tom the Fanboy
Passion over Pedantry!
Pocky Club President 2005-2010

Offline RemSaverem

  • Bunnygirl
  • *****
  • Posts: 3365
Re: A proposition to change staff's voting rights - open discussion
« Reply #219 on: October 07, 2008, 10:52:47 am »

Peace. I'm out. Honestly I just can't wait for the meeting to be over.
 

I can definitely agree with that.

Staze has laid down the conditions for proxy voting, you could very likely send a signed form up with someone from Eugene who will be attending the meeting. there are several candidates from Eugene so it shouldn't be too hard to find a proxy. It would save you the stress of the trip as well as the stress of the meeting itself.

There is some Creation Station-related business that I hope to accomplish during the aftermath of the elections (and in fact if you want to talk about the next Pocky Club Mascot contest, that would be fun, I actually had this idea what if people could turn in 3-D renderings, either computer generated or sculpted/dollies). And my boyfriend will be out of town so I might as well (if I have the gas money). But thank you for the reminder about proxy voting, and btw, you ask very good questions to clarify that process in the FAQ thread.
Ellen. 2003: Fanfic panelist & contest judge.
2004: Beta Station Coord. 2005: Fan Creation Station Coord.;pre-event assistant to the con chair.2006: Fanfic Mgr/C.S. Coord.
2007, 8, 9, 10: Fan Creation Manager. 2011: Writing & Editing Coord (Publicity).