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.

cblaisd - of some obvious relevance also (apart from the clear TB motion posted above) as per Randy's post #1 of this thread, FewMiles polled less votes than doc in the current election.

Oz, I have to disagree with you. Had TalkBoard decided that a runner up would replace anyone elected during the year in which he became runner up, it would not matter that Doc received a higher vote this time.

This was before you joined so you might not have read the discussions we had on this question, but that was one of the two possibilities we considered.

I believe there were three factors which influenced most of us to choose, instead, to follow the course that we did:

1. FewMiles, by being the runner up in 2004, would have replaced anyone -- including someone elected in 2003 -- according to Randy's announcement in 2004. By taking the route that we did, we were following an already established precedent.

2. We felt that by having the latest runner up being the one to be appointed, we were giving the FlyerTalk membership its choice as shown in the most recent election.

3. By not allowing any replacement to be appointed after the date for a new election had been set, but instead making it an elected term, we were going even further along these lines.

Thanks for the extra background Dovster. Sounds like good policy, and well thought out by the last Talk Board.

A 6-1 vote is pretty conclusive.

Dovster - sad to hear you are leaving Talk Board due to upcoming travel and time-off etc. doc I feel sure will prove a most worthy replacement member. ^

This is a very sad development for TB and for all of FT, as Dov has served the FT commmunity extremely well.

Dov is the perfect FT public servant, and so extremely well suited for the TB position, IMHO. He is one to emulate and has always done what he perceives is in the best interest of FT and all FT'ers.

I've been very busy offline in MCO, and now off to DAB to meet up with my son for the holiday. So I knew nothing about this at all.

All I can say is that I am saddened to hear of this development, hope everything works out well for Dov, and also, importantly, that I will do my absolute best for the FT community.

Mark

What does it say about me that my first thought on reading this was "how in the world would you fly MCO-DAB?" Then "isn't DAB served only by DL out of ATL? Are you really flying MCO-ATL-DAB?" and then I realized that it's really only about an hour's drive...

Doc, you will be a wonderful politician. The first two paragraphs in your post were nothing but lies.

However be careful: The last phrase, that you will do your absolute best for the FT community, is unquestionably the truth.

Oh, don't we all!

Dovster, thank you for your clarification.

No problem.

I think that this instance teaches us a very important lesson -- we should always try to establish rules before we know who is going to be effected by them.

When TB passed this one, we had no idea of who would gain or who would lose. FewMiles did not get called upon to replace anyone in 2004 and it was very possible that there would be no opening in 2005.

At the time it was theoretically possible that Doc would be the first runner up in 2005 and FewMiles the first runner up in 2006. If somebody left in 2006 it would FewMiles who would gain by this rule and Doc who would lose.

TB was able to look at the situation objectively simply because we did not know who it would impact and how. This would not be true today -- if we had to decide, following my announcement, who would be first in line there would be no question that it would boil down to a question of personalities and friendships. At that point, it would become a very dirty business.

---

Dov, thanks. As we all know, you indeed possess a wonderfully witty, as well as a delightfully self-effacing personality.

Truthfully, however, I am no politician, as anyone who knows me can surely tell you. Being far too straightforward, among various other faults, I simply can not speak from both sides of my mouth. Yet, admittedly, I do talk far too much! And I can appreciate the value in getting things done as well as compromise.

The byword for me will always be "CITE'", (the site of the wonderful Catman-DO-3 in NYC), reflecting "consistency, integrity, transparency and equality" for all FT'ers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to serve as well as for your fine dedicated service to FT. Every effort will be made by me to emulate you, I can assure you.

Be well.

All the best,

Mark