Originally Posted by cblaisd
Randy, I'm confused....
You note that there were five positions open for the current term.
There were four positions open in last year's election for the term that began then.
Can you clarify why the runners-up for this year's term are first in line to fill any spot, no matter what the actual term for which the holder was elected?
That seems to me an unusual way to proceed (and would seem to undercut the both whole notion of "terms" and the will of the electorate for a particular term if the runner up candidate for a given term is in fact ex post facto no longer the runner up slated to move into that unexpired term.) It would seem to me that the runner-up for the election for the term beginning in 2004 would be the next choice of the voters who voted for the candidates for that term.
Thanks for any light you can shed.
cblaisd, I understand your interest in this.
I can answer this question.
The TalkBoard discussed the hypothetical issue back in August and held a vote on this, and a motion was passed to the effect of what Randy announced as the policy.
I don't know why this vote does not appear on TownHall, but let me assure you that the TalkBoard discussed this in depth.
Here is the motion/vote as it took place:
VOTE: TB replacement guidelines
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to revise the TB guidelines to include the following in regards to TB replacement.
In the case of a member who leaves TalkBoard, his replacement shall be the candidate who received the highest vote in the most recent election without having been elected. A second vacancy from TalkBoard would be filled by the next candidate in line, and this process will continue until there are no more candidates available. If it reaches that point, the Administrator will appoint a member.
Once the date for a new election has been announced, no vacancy on TalkBoard will be filled until after that election. At that point, the results of the new election will determine who will fill vacancies.
Voting yes: attorney28, Dovster, gleff, missydarlin, Spiff, Starwood Lurker
Voting no: wharvey
Did not participate in the vote: ScottC, kempis
6 "yes" votes were required to pass the motion, and there were 6 "yes" votes.
------------
cblaisd, as you can see, the issue was settled by the TalkBoard back in August. Again, I am not sure why I cannot find the vote in TownHall right now, and I could also not find a thread in the public TalkBoard topics forum. With some changes I am thinking about how TalkBoard will communicate its votes, hopefully a case like this should not occur again in the future.