IMO there should be some form of minimal standard for TalkBoard eligibility. The proposed guidelines seem reasonable and hardly onerous.

Can I ask politely for the members of FlyerTalk if returning to this thread to refer only your comments to the topic of the thread and your thoughts that the Board can read and put under consideration? It is clear that a number of comments have steered off-course and may be things better suited for other threads on other days. To help the Board, clear and concise comments related to the new Guidelines would be the most helpful and you need only to make your point once.

Thank you. We do have an understanding correct?

I've finished reading the proposal as written in post 1.

I have some concerns about section F. Specifically; there is no way for the members of FT to recall, as it were, a member of TB for not representing the interests of the constituency.


What I would propose is the following, based on the CA recall election, 50%+1 of the total number of participants that voted in the last election would be needed to initiate a recall election. So if 1000 people voted in the last election 501 people would be required to initiate an election.

30 days after a recall election is initiated, an election would occur where there are then two questions. Should the person be removed from office (Yes/No)? And a list of all of the people who want to take that person's place?

If there is then 50%+1 of the votes say yes to the first question, then the person is removed and whoever receives a plurality would serve out the remaining term.

A person would be able to vote no to someone being removed and a also vote for replacement.

A recall election could be initiated by the members of FT for any reason, if they managed to convince enough people to their way of thinking.

Think about how this could work out:

There were 15 candidates in the regular election, each trying to get one of the 5 available seats.

There are 1000 members who voted in the election. Joe finished in 5th place with 400 votes (it is very possible as people are allowed to cast 5 ballots).

Bill finished in 6th place with 300 votes. Joe got on TalkBoard, Bill did not. The 600 people who did not vote for Joe immediately demand a recall election. Joe is out. There are now 10 candidates for Joe's seat. Again, 1000 members vote. Bill again gets 300 votes and the remaining 700 votes is divided among the remaining 9 candidates. Bill wins.

What you have accomplished is getting rid of a TB member who 400 people want and replaced him with someone who only 300 want. And, of course, the 700 people who did not vote for Bill would be free to hold another recall.

Given that we have multiple candidates for multiple TB seats, with members casting multiple votes, a recall provision would be completely unworkable.

Ouch. My head hurts. Thanks for figuring this out!

Your missing one minor point, just because there is a call for a recall election does not mean Joe is out.

During the recall election, you must first vote yes or not to actually recall Joe.

If and only if there are sufficient yes votes, then the second vote is actually counted and put into force.

This is based off of the model that CA used for it's recall election for governor. A recall election is currently permitted in 15 states, and if you look at the history of the US, a recall election has only happened twice. So, I don't think this would be a very exercised option.

If you look at section A, subsection i of the proposed guidelines:

It makes sense that if TalkBoard exists as a representative body for the membership of FT and for the interests of the membership of FT, then the membership of FT should have the ability to remove a member of TalkBoard if it does not feel like a member (or the entire board) is fulfilling its primary functions. Whether this mechanism is a recall election or via some other means, the membership should be able to say when, and with a clear voice, their interests are not being adequately represented.

If the only way to remove a member of TalkBoard mid terms exists outside the purview of the membership. The then question must be asked, "Who watches the watchers?"

But in Dov's example, surely there would be 600 voters that would vote yes to recall Joe, would there not? And 600 out of 1000 would result in Joe being out.

It is possible.

However in the last TB election, if each person cast 5 votes there were only 737.4 people voting in the election. We know there can’t be 0.4 of a person so it is safe to presume that not everyone cast all five of their alloted ballots. But, lacking additional information such as the actual number of voters my ability to do a complete and accurate analysis is hampered.

Under the proposal 369.7 of them would be required to vote for a recall. Only the top two candidates even initially obtained that level of support with members being able to cast votes for multiple candidates. I think that is a very high bar to reach and the scenario would be possible, but I would think it would be unlikely.

If you compare the proposal to what is needed to recall an elected official in different states and countries, the initial bar is set significantly higher. Maybe it is even too high. In actuality to force a recall election it probably should be lower then 50%+1. For example in the 2003 CA recall election, only 12% of the number of votes cast in the previous elections was needed to force a recall election.

Is the proposal perfect? I wish it was, but I would then just be deluding myself :)

Additional safeguards and controls could be added, to help prevent the hypothetical scenario Dovster presented. Such as the 50%+1 people must be collected within a 30 day time span so it is not an open time to collect people. Or that the earliest a recall could occur is 120 days following the start of term/last scheduled TalkBoard election.

Maybe the CA model isn't the best one to follow and we need to add in a provision that outlines specifically what a person can be recalled for such as exists in Alaska, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Rhode Island, and Washington. In those states, the initial recall petition is subject to judicial review.

A recall election may not even be the best tool. There may be better tools out there for discussion.

But as I said in my previous post, if TalkBoard exists as a representative body for the membership of FT and for the interests of the membership of FT, then the membership of FT should have the ability to remove a member of TalkBoard if it does not feel like a member (or the entire board) is fulfilling its primary functions.

This function should rest with the membership and not be dependant on the TalkBoard's actions or inactions.

I'm not sure a recall provision is a good idea. However, unlike in Dov's example, I think a recall might work IF the regular TB "replacement" rules were followed. Rather than holding a special election to replace the recalled member, the slot goes to the next person on the list from the previous election. If that is the provision for filling a slot open for any other reason, why not for a recall?

It would also prevent many of the 600 FTers who did not vote for Joe (in Dov's example) favoring his recall, because even fewer of them wanted Bill on the TB.

I do not support adding a recall clause. We're taking the duties that are handled by Talkboard much too seriously if we think that is needed. We are not talking about governance of a country here.

As it is, I wonder why anyone would run for Talkboard. We expect them to justify and rejustify their positions, to engage in any conversation we want to open, and be on call at any time. We are all volunteers. Enough. Honestly, it appears to me to be so unpleasant to be a Talkboard member I marvel that we had good people who run.

Beyond that, I believe that a recall measure would be incredibly divisive for the board as a whole. The primary reason most of us are here is to have civilized conversation about how to maximize our travel experience. The Talkboard campaign period is bad enough for creating ill will among good people. I fear what a recall effort would do. And for what benefit?

SanDiego1K, as always, thanks for your input. It's truly appreciated.

Those of us running for and serving on TalkBoard all have a bit of a masochistic quality about us.

While we enjoy serving the FT community and that is the primary reason we run and serve, truth be told, we secretly crave the public flogging we receive on a regular basis. :o

In that case, you are going to love the surprise you are going to get in Boca in December!

We only have to look at the last election for interesting input.

Randy posted the election votes as follows:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=761215

Listed in order of finish:

1. gleff - 507 (returning member)
2. Cholula - 441(returning member)
3. lucky9876coins - 341
4. Punki - 241
5. kokonutz - 229 **

Should there be any need to fulfill any members term, the following candidates were next in order of finish:

berlinflyer - 216
nsx - 210
ClueByFour - 202
Radioman - 179
kanebear - 138
FewMiles - 134
skofarrell - 128
GoldFlyer - 117
RichMSN - 115
UALOneKPlus - 103
Weatherboy - 82
GenevaFlyer - 74
NOLAnwGOLD - 48
Pizzaman - 48
satori - 40
Elizabethh - 30
the_traveler - 26
LadyPhoenix - 17
TooMuchTravel73 - 16
rexb - 5


If the current motion goes haead Punki and Kokonutz would be ineligible to stand as far as I can see.

Perhaps this explains the MANY posts above from both nsx and ClueByFour constantly urging for the current wording to remain. :D

Is that vested interest posting? Of course not. HEAVEN forbid. :p

Again I'll state that I do believe TB and the "ordinary" members are much smarter and more savvy than many give them credit for. ;)

Glen

I'm confused Glen.

Why would koko and punki be ineligible to stand in any future elections?

You know full well.

Stick to "number crunching" is my sincere advice to you.

As trying to get me to breach the TOS is going to be a miserable failure.

Glen