TalkBoard Topics - Motion Passed: Updated TalkBoard Guidelines - Filling Vacancies of Elected TalkBoard

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:

The existing TalkBoard Guidelines do not explicitly provide for filling a vacancy in the Vice President/Secretary position. In 2011 the TalkBoard faced this situation and held an internal election to fill the vacancy. To establish this precedent as permanent policy, Section 3.C.ii.b. shall be revised as follows (changes in italics):

b. Vice President/Secretary: Shall in the event of the absence or inability of the President to exercise his/her office become acting President of the TalkBoard with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he/she had been the duly elected President. If the absence of the President becomes permanent, the Vice President/Secretary shall become President of the TalkBoard. If the position of Vice President/Secretary becomes vacant for this or any other reason, the President shall conduct a new election for Vice President/Secretary for the remainder of the term.

The Vice President/Secretary is also responsible for recording and announcing TalkBoard motions and votes in both the TalkBoard Topics public forum and the Town Hall forum as provided for under TalkBoard’s voting and public notice guidelines and in doing so shall work with the public TalkBoard forum moderators to ensure that TalkBoard business on the public forum is handled effectively and in compliance with TalkBoard rules and procedures.

This vote will close on Mar 18, 2011 at 11:40 AM Pacific Time or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Great job nsx!

Thank you for listening to the concerns and acting to resolve them.

^^^

Potato - potatoe. Tomato - tomatoe. It's basically the same process that currently exists, but at least now any Prez who unexpectedly comes into the role won't have arrows flung at him/her because it's now formalized they are the Prez. Shrug.

Cheers.

Potato - potatoe. Tomato - tomatoe. It's basically the same process that currently exists, but at least now any Prez who unexpectedly comes into the role won't have arrows flung at him/her because it's now formalized they are the Prez. Shrug.


You obviously fail to see the point. Just because Spiff came to power via that process does not mean that that process "currently exists". The procedure does not "exist" until it is codified. Spiff may occupy the office (indeed, he legitimately serves as the "Acting President" anyway with all powers and responsibilities of the office) but holds no moral authority as substantive President until this resolution passes.

And the arrows being flung at Spiff are not because of any problem with him personally, but rather because he has still not bothered to take time out of his busy schedule to respond to those of us who raised the issue either privately or publicly. That arrogance is a poor reflection on the office of the President.

Potato - potatoe on your first paragraph. I see the point. I don't necessarily agree w/ it. To me it's basically the same process/action. The current acting Prez does hold substantative once he switched up IMO because the guidelines never said otherwise. Now it's just formalized (presuming this passes) so there's no more of the illegitimate crap being slung around in future should the (presumably rare) situation ever occur again.

Actually you flung the arrows up front so lack of response after you flung them neither makes them valid nor makes a lack of response arrogant. I actually took it as a not wanting to get into a mudslinging fest.

Cheers.

...not wanting to get into a mudslinging fest.

For an American history analogy, President Tyler took the same approach in 1841, thank goodness.

because the guidelines never said otherwise

:rolleyes:

If that's the best reason you can come up with, I'm even more grateful this is being codified.

:rolleyes:

The guidelines then & now will pretty much be the same, so it's not like there's a big difference.

Just some that threw out the illegitimate stuff (which I thought was pretty tacky) will now have to find something else to complain about ;)

This is purely administrative. 'Nuf said.

Cheers.

Just some that threw out the illegitimate stuff (which I thought was pretty tacky) will now have to find something else to complain about ;)

This is purely administrative. 'Nuf said.


The fact that the change needed to be made simply proves the point that there was a deficiency to begin with. You may dislike the fact that it was challenged as illegitimate, but that doesn't legitimize it.

The guidelines then & now will pretty much be the same, so it's not like there's a big difference. This is purely administrative....

^

Not to mention a solution in search of an actual problem.

There was an oversight in the guidelines. As the primary drafter of the guidelines I freely admit this. Jenbel, as my primary devil's advocate during the drafting the guidelines admits she missed it too.

We screwed up, the entire TB who drafted and approve the guidelines screwed up. You guys are fixing it.

B747-437B is correct, under the current guidelines Spiffy is Acting President. And nsx's position is illegitimate. Had I been on the TB when these illegitimate decisions were taken I would have protested. I watched them happen but was traveling and so didn't have the time or energy to protest.

But for future reference, the TB should NOT be making up rules on the fly or fudging 'interpretations' to cover problems with the rules. That's bad precedent. When a problem with the rules are found, the formal procedure for correcting the rules should be followed, imho, natch.

Spiff became TalkBoard President precisely following the rules in place at the time, "with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he had been the duly elected President."

There was no written discussion of filling a vacancy in the VP position. So it was handled exactly as any other TalkBoard issue is handled, including the creation of the TalkBaord guidelines and hte amending of those guidelines -- by supermajority vote of the TalkBoard.

And only the Host (was this amended to say Community Director? I haven't followed changes since I've stepped off the TalkBoard) can declare something "unconstitutional."

Rabble rousing over administrivia notwithstanding, we had a remarkable, peaceful transition of power. Rare in the world these days, actually ^

Spiff became TalkBoard President precisely following the rules in place at the time, "with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he had been the duly elected President."

There was no written discussion of filling a vacancy in the VP position. So it was handled exactly as any other TalkBoard issue is handled, including the creation of the TalkBaord guidelines and hte amending of those guidelines -- by supermajority vote of the TalkBoard.

And only the Host (was this amended to say Community Director? I haven't followed changes since I've stepped off the TalkBoard) can declare something "unconstitutional."

Rabble rousing over administrivia notwithstanding, we had a remarkable, peaceful transition of power. Rare in the world these days, actually ^Lol, that's exactly what one would expect the former President-for-life to say. :p

But you qouted the TB guidelines very selectively. Here is what they currently say:

a. President: Will act as executive officer of TalkBoard, ensuring that timely consideration of issues takes place, keeping the parliamentary processes flowing, and providing liaison between individual TalkBoard members and the FlyerTalk Host. The President will also serve as a liaison between the TalkBoard and the moderator corps. The President shall comply with and enforce these guidelines as well as the FlyerTalk Terms of Service in the private TalkBoard forum. In the event that a TalkBoard member who is not already a moderator is elected as TalkBoard President, the Host shall decide who shall have moderator powers in the private TalkBoard forum with the understanding that the assigned moderator, if other than the TalkBoard President, shall use such power in close coordination with the TalkBoard President. In situations where there is lack of guidance from these guidelines or Roberts Rules of Order with regard to the conduct of TalkBoard business or the responsibilities and obligations of TalkBoard members, the President shall provide such guidance and/or clarity with the advice of the FlyerTalk Host until such time that these guidelines are amended to provide such guidance and/or clarity.
b. Vice President/Secretary: Shall in the event of the absence or inability of the President to exercise his office become acting President of the TalkBoard with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he had been the duly elected President. The Vice President/Secretary is also responsible for recording and announcing TalkBoard motions and votes in both the TalkBoard Topics public forum and the Town Hall forum as provided for under TalkBoard’s voting and public notice guidelines and in doing so shall work with the public TalkBoard forum moderators to ensure that TalkBoard business on the public forum is handled effectively and in compliance with TalkBoard rules and procedures.
Now, you could make the case that Spiff was within his powers as acting President to call an election for the VP/Secretary because there was a lack of clarity regarding electing a VP/Secretary...except that there IS clarity regarding the elelction of both the President AND the VP/Secretary:

a. The TalkBoard shall elect a President to serve a one year term no later than 4 weeks after the general election.
b. Any voting member of the TalkBoard with access to the private TalkBoard forum may run in the presidential election.
c. The presidential elections shall be conducted as follows: Any candidate garnering more than 2/3 of the total TalkBoard vote in the primary presidential vote shall be immediately declared the winner. If there are more than 2 candidates in the primary vote and none receive 2/3 of the total vote then a final vote shall be held between the top two vote-getters. In the final vote, the President shall be decided by a simple majority vote. If there are no more than two candidates for President, then there will be no primary election before the final vote and a simple majority will elect.
d. Once the new President is elected the TalkBoard shall elect a Vice President/Secretary to serve a one year term. Elections shall be conducted in an identical manner to the presidential election and shall be completed within 2 weeks of the election of the President.
e. Elections of the President and Vice President/Secretary shall be held by secret ballot.
f. Once both officers have been elected the Vice President/Secretary shall post a thread in both the public TalkBoard Topics forum as well as the Town Hall forum noting the election of the new officers.So it is clearly written that the only time an election for a VP could be called is after the election of a new President which can only happen no later than 4 weeks after the general election.

The thing is, my former lord and President-for-life, we never contemplated that you'd quit (or die, for that matter! :)) half-way through a term. So we never provided for it. And I guess we assumed if a VP/Secretary quit or died halfway through a term the Prez would do his or her job.

So by the terms of the TB guidelines as they stand today, Spiff is technically the acting President, and the acting President conducted an illegitimate election of a new VP/Secretary.

I'm glad that nsx and SkiAdcock (and hopefully the rest of the TB) are fixing this mess we left in the guidelines now, but I would have preferred if the acting President had worked to fix the rules before conducting the election of a new VP/Secretary rather than simply ignoring them. And I wish that someone on the TB had objected to the violation of the rules by the acting President. Had I still been on the TB I certainly would have.

But you qouted the TB guidelines very selectively. No,m actually I quoted the relevant piece of the guidelines that folks were selectively ignoring in order to make their case above.... ;)

The word 'acting' is in there. But the language very clearly says that the acting President is to be treated and afforded all power and authority as though s/he had been elected.

No illegitimacy whatsoever in the TB VP assuming the role of President. Period. No grey area at all. It's what the guidelines say.

Meanwhile, as departing TB President the former President did provide guidance on this point as called for by the guidelines. And the Host/Community Director was consulted.

All in accordance with the guidelines.

So it's not really surprising that your argument now collapses to the VP election was somehow illegitimate.

Except once we establish above that Spiff ought to be accorded all of the pwoers as though he had been duly elected, he's acting well within the guidelines.

And regardless, the TalkBoard itself was taking action based on 2/3rds majority, which is the fundamental source even of the guidelines themselves.


So it is clearly written that the only time an election for a VP could be called is after the election of a new President which can only happen no later than 4 weeks after the general election.


No, it proscribes that such an election shall take place at that time. It does not say that it is the only time such an election may take place. It does not say any other election is illegitimate. The guidelines are simply silent on the point, hence reverting to the previous pwoers and discussion in the event of ambiguity.

If it were otherwise then you would have to contend that being a day late at the beginning of a term would mean the TalkBoard could not have a VP for that term...

Lol, that's exactly what one would expect the former President-for-life to say. :p

I wouldn't expect a former President-for-life to say anything...

...not if he was really President for life!
.

No,m actually I quoted the relevant piece of the guidelines that folks were selectively ignoring in order to make their case above.... ;)

The word 'acting' is in there. But the language very clearly says that the acting President is to be treated and afforded all power and authority as though s/he had been elected.

No illegitimacy whatsoever in the TB VP assuming the role of President. Period. No grey area at all. It's what the guidelines say.So far, we agree. Except it says he becomes "acting President," not "President"

Meanwhile, as departing TB President the former President did provide guidance on this point as called for by the guidelines. And the Host/Community Director was consulted.

All in accordance with the guidelines.That's great, but you were consulting over an issue that violated the words in the guidelines.

So it's not really surprising that your argument now collapses to the VP election was somehow illegitimate.

Except once we establish above that Spiff ought to be accorded all of the pwoers as though he had been duly elected, he's acting well within the guidelines.

And regardless, the TalkBoard itself was taking action based on 2/3rds majority, which is the fundamental source even of the guidelines themselves.

No, it proscribes that such an election shall take place at that time. It does not say that it is the only time such an election may take place. It does not say any other election is illegitimate. The guidelines are simply silent on the point, hence reverting to the previous pwoers and discussion in the event of ambiguity.

If it were otherwise then you would have to contend that being a day late at the beginning of a term would mean the TalkBoard could not have a VP for that term...
We clearly see this very differently. I see the guidelines as prescriptive and exhausive. You seem to see them as a starting point and as long as the President and Host and 2/3 of the TB agree to break the rules then the rules are not broken. So why bother having rules at all!? Heck, want to have a VP election every month, well, the guidelines dont mention a VP election every month, so why the heck not!?

I don't have a problem with what happened and is happening. I have a problem with the order that it is being done in.

The TB should have fixed the rules first and then abided by them rather than simply ignoring them.

I wouldn't expect a former President-for-life to say anything...

...not if he was really President for life!
.

:D ;)

It is important that where the guidelines are lacking, imprecise or plain wrong, they get amended, so TB doesn't end up falling back on custom, memory and 'that's how we've always done it' approach that was in vogue until these guidelines were produced. It's tedious, it's easy to dismiss as pointless, and it's incredibly dull, but to me it is necessary.

I wasn't commenting on this motion, merely offering my context and experience on a past issue that some folks seem to be confused about. My guess is that they continue to purposely be confused, but that merely speculation on my part... :)

I wasn't commenting on this motion, merely offering my context and experience on a past issue that some folks seem to be confused about. My guess is that they continue to purposely be confused, but that merely speculation on my part... :)

In your context and experience the President could decide to hold a VP election every month since the guidelines don't mention a VP election every month.

There's no confusion here: in the name of expediency you guys didn't follow the rules. Jenbel is right: sometimes the hard thing and the right thing are the same. If the rules are broken, don't fudge them, FIX them.

What's done is done. I only hope the TB pays better respect to their own rules in the future, and they seem well on their way to doing that with this motion. ^

There was no fudging. And no, an VP election couldn't be held every month, unless of course there was a 2/3rds vote to overturn the previous election. You can keep beating the drum all you want but proper procedure was followed.

I certainly have no objection to proscribing whatever future contingencies one wishes into the guidelines, as I say I'm not here commmenting on the current TalkBoard action.

I'm just responding to the claim that anything was done improperly or contrary to the guidelines up until now, because that's simply not the case.

Y'all have already given up, fortunately, on the claim that Spiff does not appropriately act as TalkBoard President as though he were duly elected. So at least I've accomplished that much!

Argue all you wish that the TalkBoard could not, with 2/3rds majority, properly elect a new TalkBoard VP. But that's counter to all of TalkBoard procedure, history, and guidelines up until this point.

There was no fudging. And no, an VP election couldn't be held every month, unless of course there was a 2/3rds vote to overturn the previous election. You can keep beating the drum all you want but proper procedure was followed.

I certainly have no objection to proscribing whatever future contingencies one wishes into the guidelines, as I say I'm not here commenting on the current TalkBoard action.

I'm just responding to the claim that anything was done improperly or contrary to the guidelines up until now, because that's simply not the case.

Y'all have already given up, fortunately, on the claim that Spiff does not appropriately act as TalkBoard President as though he were duly elected. So at least I've accomplished that much!

Argue all you wish that the TalkBoard could not, with 2/3rds majority, properly elect a new TalkBoard VP. But that's counter to all of TalkBoard procedure, history, and guidelines up until this point.

I think it's clear that you thought what you and spiff did with Carol's consent was right.

I simply disagree. The fact that this motion exists seems to me to implicitly verify that the guidelines as written left the post of VP/Secretary vacant until after the next general election and the Presidential election.

Again, why bother to have rules at all if you're going to simply suspend the rules whenever its more expedient to do so?

And if you have a 2/3 majority ready to accept fudging the rules then you have the 2/3 required to FIX the rules. So why not fix them in the first place rather than fudging them first and now fixing them later!?

As for the bolded bit above, I never claimed that Spiff does not appropriately act as TalkBoard President as though he were duly elected. As acting President in your absence, clearly he does. What I have repeatedly said is that until this motion passes, he is acting President until he is ELECTED as President. Because that's what the current guidelines say. And, per the guidelines,

These guidelines provide for the mission, organization and procedures of the TalkBoard. These guidelines supersede any and all previous guidelines, precedents and procedures.

Finally, you and I can go back and forth on this all day. I'd really like to hear from some of the current TB members on this issue, and especially from the acting President and the Community Director.

You can disagree with this, or with gravity. But it doesn't change things. And I'm more than happy to see the discussion return to the motion and away from this side issue, we've already made some progress because no one claims Spiff is acting illegitimately anymore. Since he's not. Folks have just shifted their carping to another issue, and we now turn it back to the rest of the community... ;)

You can disagree with this, or with gravity. But it doesn't change things. And I'm more than happy to see the discussion return to the motion and away from this side issue, we've already made some progress because no one claims Spiff is acting illegitimately anymore. Since he's not. Folks have just shifted their carping to another issue, and we now turn it back to the rest of the community... ;)No one said he is acting illegitimately. I said he actED illegitimately, and apparently with your counsel and Carol's consent as well as the consent of at least 2/3 of the TB. @:-)

nsx and SkiAdcock created this motion to address an issue that is currently poorly addressed in the guidelines. One that clearly generated some sort of discussion among the TB.

So I'd really like to hear from the current TB members on this issue, and especially from the acting President and the Community Director: what matters more, following the established guidelines (including the procedures for addressing a situation poorly addressed in the guidelines) or expediency?!

No one said he is acting illegitimately. I said he actED illegitimately

Turns out I was mistaken, I had attributed statements made by B747-437B and ScottC to you in my mind, and having gone back to review the record I was incorrect. Now, saying "no one said" isn't quite right either. But as far as I can see, you did not. So I apologize for the misunderstanding.

what matters more, following the established guidelines (including the procedures for addressing a situation poorly addressed in the guidelines) or expediency?!C'mon, koko, that's not the issue here or the choice. That's a rather one-sided way to pose the question and anybody answering the question as-asked would be offering little or no insight whatsoever into their take on the motion currently before the TalkBoard.

So I'd really like to hear from the current TB members on this issue, and especially from the acting President and the Community Director: what matters more, following the established guidelines (including the procedures for addressing a situation poorly addressed in the guidelines) or expediency?!

Koko, I respect your skill with words. I sincerely do. I was a nationally ranked debater in college. I would have left the field to you. I no longer enjoy word smithing and parsing phrases as you do. I simply don't have the passion to figure out all the nuances and possible interpretations of words. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not so much.

In this case, it was clear that Spiff should become president, whether acting or not. I think you are saying that Talkboard should have done without a vice president til the guidelines were amended. I suppose one can find an interpretation in the guidelines that support that view. You're bright. You believe that. Or at least, you are having fun arguing that. Honestly, it never occurred to me that without specificity, we should do nothing. The logical next step was to choose a vice president, using the same process as the vice president is chosen each year.

Now, that vice president has introduced an amendment to the guidelines so that going forward there is a defined process. And that's as good as it's going to get. No matter how long we discuss past actions, nothing is going to change. No election is going to be overturned. I still feel completely comfortable with what was done.

I suggest that we turn our significant energies to discussion of what can improve FlyerTalk and try to make that happen, rather than Monday morning quarterbacking of this particular decision.

Koko, I respect your skill with words. I sincerely do. I was a nationally ranked debater in college. I would have left the field to you. I no longer enjoy word smithing and parsing phrases as you do. I simply don't have the passion to figure out all the nuances and possible interpretations of words. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes not so much.

In this case, it was clear that Spiff should become president, whether acting or not. I think you are saying that Talkboard should have done without a vice president til the guidelines were amended. I suppose one can find an interpretation in the guidelines that support that view. You're bright. You believe that. Or at least, you are having fun arguing that. Honestly, it never occurred to me that without specificity, we should do nothing. The logical next step was to choose a vice president, using the same process as the vice president is chosen each year.

Now, that vice president has introduced an amendment to the guidelines so that going forward there is a defined process. And that's as good as it's going to get. No matter how long we discuss past actions, nothing is going to change. No election is going to be overturned. I still feel completely comfortable with what was done.

I suggest that we turn our significant energies to discussion of what can improve FlyerTalk and try to make that happen, rather than Monday morning quarterbacking of this particular decision.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

You are correct: it's my strong opinion that the TB should have done without a vice president until the guidelines were amended.

I agree with you and gleff and spiff and nsx and skiadcock about how the process SHOULD work.

What I am doing here is trying to preserve the integrity of the guidelines. A great deal of thought, work, debate and compromise went into creating the guidelines and getting consensus for them. And we knew when they were approved that there would be things that we forgot or got wrong. It was meant to be a living document.

And I don't think it takes a parliamentarian to see that the guidelines did not anticipate or account for a President quitting mid-term. Only for a President taking a leave of absence. So instead of working around that problem by just doing what seemed logical, I think the TB should have addressed that problem head-on by fixing the guidelines.

When I was first elected to the TB it operated on vague precedents, random governance motions that had passed through the years and mostly the will of the President. The point of the guidelines is to step AWAY from just doing whatever seems logical in any given situation and instead having established rules for how things will go rather than deciding on a case-by-case basis, often arbitrarily.

I also agree with you that what's done is done in this case. BUT what I am hoping is that by harping on this issue now it won't happen again. Because I assure you, there will be other things that the TB Guidelines won't account for. But rather than just doing what seems logical next time, I hope that the TB will instead decide what is logical, then write that into the guidelines, THEN do what is logical and in the guidelines.

As I keep saying, you either operate by the rules or you may as well not have any rules at all.

As I keep saying, you either operate by the rules or you may as well not have any rules at all.

This is going to be moot soon enough, but IMHO if the rules are silent, you should go with what 2/3 of the TB chooses. I don't see the need to draft a new rule in a hurry BEFORE taking necessary action. That's a recipe for sloppy guidelines. Better to act by 2/3 vote, consider any potential changes at leisure, then make a general rule for future cases. Which is just what we did here. @:-)

This is going to be moot soon enough, but IMHO if the rules are silent, you should go with what 2/3 of the TB chooses. I don't see the need to draft a new rule in a hurry BEFORE taking necessary action. That's a recipe for sloppy guidelines. Better to act by 2/3 vote, consider any potential changes at leisure, then make a general rule for future cases. Which is just what we did here. @:-)

When did 2/3 of the TB vote to hold an election for a new VP vs. having the CD or the President appoint one to fill the term or on an interim basis, or any of 10 other options I can think of off the top of my head? Where was the public notice and discussion of this vote? Or was this decision just made on the fly without any of the deliberative requirements called for in the guidelines?

Further, why the rush to get a new VP installed? As acting President, the VP/Secretary retains his or her duties and responsibilities for that role as well.

I do agree that the TB should have taken its time to make these adjustments to the guidelines to make sure you get it right. But in the meantime the TB should have followed the TB guidelines.

You have some good points there koko, but I went through a couple of drafts to come up with the current proposal. What I started with was succession by the previous runner-up, with certain limitations, but that created so many complications that I gave up on it. My point is that it takes time to get the rules right, and requiring new rules to be made in a hurry is a bad idea.

In this instance, I believe that all the TB members were in agreement with the process. Having a vote to allow a vote would have added a 2-week delay for no benefit expect to lovers of formalities, which I am not, despite my being on the TalkBoard. :D

You have some good points there koko, but I went through a couple of drafts to come up with the current proposal. What I started with was succession by the previous runner-up, with certain limitations, but that created so many complications that I gave up on it. My point is that it takes time to get the rules right, and requiring new rules to be made in a hurry is a bad idea.

In this instance, I believe that all the TB members were in agreement with the process. Having a vote to allow a vote would have added a 2-week delay for no benefit expect to lovers of formalities, which I am not, despite my being on the TalkBoard. :D

Thank you, nsx, for being open to my points rather than simply labeling me a rabble-rouser or dismissing my concerns as arguing against gravity. ^

I understand that the TB formalities can be tedious at times. But here's the thing: those formalities exist for a reason.

The 2 week time-frame required by the guidelines allows for calm and deliberative consideration of major decisions OPEN TO POSTERS FOR REVIEW rather than the 9 members of the TB simply taking decisions behind the scenes with no accountability to the posters.

I ran for TB back in the day to open up what I considered a star chamber to better poster transparency and accountability. You guys seem to have taken an enormous decision, how to install a new VP/Secretary and then having a vote to do so and then installing one, with zero public notice or poster input. That's exactly the kind of stuff that imho used to happen all the time and it drove me so nutz I felt compelled to run for the TB specifically so I could help implement rules on the TB that require the TB to be transparent and open to input before taking major decisions.

As you learned, writing those guidelines is a PITA. It's really hard to get them right. That's why I am shocked that the TB would simply decide one day, hey, let's just have an election then have that election without bothering to go through the deliberative process and checks and balances required by the TB guidelines.

Please don't get me wrong; I'm glad you got elected VP/Secretary. I think you are a good choice. I'm glad that the two candidates who ran for that office sponsored and seconded this motion to fix this guidelines oversight in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines.

I just wish you guys had put that process into the guidelines with all of the transparency and accountability called for in the guidelines BEFORE you implemented this policy. The TB is not and should not be a star chamber. Please don't act like one and make me feel compelled to run for TB again! ^ ;)

And we just wish you had accounted for the situation when you were doing the revision of the guidelines ;) If wishes were horses, etc.

The situation is in the midst of being corrected. Time to move on IMO.

Cheers.

...Time to move on.

^

I am also reminded of that old joke: "Why are fights in academe [read: on IBBs] of so contentious?"

"Because the stakes are so small."

Or, per an earlier poster: administrivia.

And kudos to Carol for her thoughtful and reasoned response.

And we just wish you had accounted for the situation when you were doing the revision of the guidelines ;) If wishes were horses, etc.

The situation is in the midst of being corrected. Time to move on IMO.

Cheers.

As I keep saying, I've moved on from this incident.

But I'm still trying to make sure that the integrety of the guidelines are preserved in the future.

Most of you ran on a platform that included transparancy of TB actions and accountability to the posters.

I'm going to hold you all to those promises. :)

^

I am also reminded of that old joke: "Why are fights in academe [read: on IBBs] of so contentious?"

"Because the stakes are so small."

Or, per an earlier poster: administrivia.

And kudos to Carol for her thoughtful and reasoned response.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that you consider TalkBoard transparancy and accountability to the posters to be small-stakes administrivia and have no problem with anyone round here playing fast and loose with the rules.

But thanks for reminding us anyway. ^

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you consider TalkBoard transparancy and accountability to the posters to be small-stakes administrivia and have no problem with anyone round here playing fast and loose with the rules.

I, too, will now yield to the master at rhetorical tactics:

...I would have left the field to you. I no longer enjoy word smithing and parsing phrases as you do.

And we just wish you had accounted for the situation when you were doing the revision of the guidelines ;) If wishes were horses, etc.

The situation is in the midst of being corrected. Time to move on IMO.

Cheers.
Hindsight is amazing. I'm sure this is not the only time you'll find we messed up :o :(

But do remember, that not only was there huge amounts of discussion internally, we also posted all of the guidelines for all of FT to read and comment on before we even got to the stage of finalising in a proposal (or indeed several!), and no-one else picked up on this omission either.

Oh heck Jenbel. I KNOW what you all went through to get it done & ommissions happen (the abstain thing to me was a bigger one than this one). And I think you all did a really good job.

I'm just having a bit of fun w/ koko, whom I'm starting to think is either paid by the word or is stuck in Groundhog Day saying the same thing over & over ;) :D

Cheers.

Well I do wonder if he is stuck in the middle of the US equivalent of Auchtermuchty, with the only thing keeping him sane is the internet ;)

But, he wrote this stuff, drove it all through, so I can understand why he thinks it is important, since it became very obvious when we were on TB together it really was a necessity, that we couldn't just keep relying on someone saying that's how it always had been done. I'm not quite so wedded as he is to getting the rules sorted first and then making the changes, but I do think, as I said above, that you do need to keep updating the guidelines as you come across anomalies like this.

And I did forget a smilie on my post ;) It wasn't meant to be as serious sounding as it seemed :o

Does Spiff really "wield power"? I wish I had sucked up to him more when I met him in Seattle.

I don't peruse the TB forum very often...and threads like this one serve to remind me why.

Well I do wonder if he is stuck in the middle of the US equivalent of Auchtermuchty, with the only thing keeping him sane is the internet ;)

But, he wrote this stuff, drove it all through, so I can understand why he thinks it is important, since it became very obvious when we were on TB together it really was a necessity, that we couldn't just keep relying on someone saying that's how it always had been done. I'm not quite so wedded as he is to getting the rules sorted first and then making the changes, but I do think, as I said above, that you do need to keep updating the guidelines as you come across anomalies like this.

And I did forget a smilie on my post ;) It wasn't meant to be as serious sounding as it seemed :o

Why, Jenbel my dear, if I didn't know better I might think you were agreeing with me. :o

But really, Auchtermuchty? Look, this is an AMERICAN board. Speak AMERICAN! :mad:

I'm going to speak American. Are we still banging on & on (oops) going on & on about this? Geesh. I think everyone's made their points already (some multiple times :rolleyes:).

And don't make me look up auchtermuchty :p :D

Cheers.

You have some good points there koko, but I went through a couple of drafts to come up with the current proposal.

Speaking of transparency...

One of the drafts that nsx briefly considered (before being shot down ;)) incorporated a previous issue that Markie and I had brought up:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/town-hall-official-talkboard-voting-decisions/1175347-motion-failed-talkboard-officer-platforms-talkboard-election-officer.html

I still think that transparency in the Presidential/Vice Presidential elections is something that would enhance the election process and so held off supporting the current version as submitted by nsx, but it now appears that is not an option. Therefore, I support this current measure, as I do believe it clarifies a muddy point, even though I don't think it quite does enough to ensure a fully transparent process.

I'm going to speak American. Are we still banging on & on (oops) going on & on about this? Geesh. I think everyone's made their points already (some multiple times :rolleyes:).

And don't make me look up auchtermuchty :p :D

Cheers.

Once you've voted you can stop reading if you like!

On 13 March 2011, the TalkBoard passed 9-0:

Moved by nsx and seconded by SkiAdcock:

The existing TalkBoard Guidelines do not explicitly provide for filling a vacancy in the Vice President/Secretary position. In 2011 the TalkBoard faced this situation and held an internal election to fill the vacancy. To establish this precedent as permanent policy, Section 3.C.ii.b. shall be revised as follows (changes in italics):

b. Vice President/Secretary: Shall in the event of the absence or inability of the President to exercise his/her office become acting President of the TalkBoard with all the rights, privileges and powers as if he/she had been the duly elected President. If the absence of the President becomes permanent, the Vice President/Secretary shall become President of the TalkBoard. If the position of Vice President/Secretary becomes vacant for this or any other reason, the President shall conduct a new election for Vice President/Secretary for the remainder of the term.

The Vice President/Secretary is also responsible for recording and announcing TalkBoard motions and votes in both the TalkBoard Topics public forum and the Town Hall forum as provided for under TalkBoard’s voting and public notice guidelines and in doing so shall work with the public TalkBoard forum moderators to ensure that TalkBoard business on the public forum is handled effectively and in compliance with TalkBoard rules and procedures.

Voting yes: bhatnasx, Cholula, jackal, lucky9876coins, Markie, nsx, SkiAdcock, Spiff, UA_Flyer