Flushingrouse resignation – Board opening

[GrouseTales]

I regret to announce that Bill, aka: Flushingrouse, has announced his resignation from the Board of Directors.

Bill reports that his very busy work schedule is leaving little time for Board business. Bill has been an asset to the WGA Board of Directors and he will be missed.

Bill has served one year of his two year term. This leaves one year left on his term which needs to be filled. The Board of Directors has discussed the matter. Rather then having a separate election to fill his seat, it was determined that we will fill the position from the current pool of candidates.

It was decided that the candidate ranking #6, based on the amount of votes received, will fill the vacant one year term.

Again, we are very sorry to see Bill leave the Board. I’m sure this was a very tough decision for him to make.

[PCFrog]

I like to thank Flushingrouse for serving on the BOD.

I would like to clarify that the position would be only filled assuming that #6 agrees to only one year. Is this true or not? Does #6 have no choice? If number six declines then does it go to the next person? (if there is one)

[GrouseTales]

@PCFrog wrote:

I would like to clarify that the position would be only filled assuming that #6 agrees to only one year. Is this true or not? Does #6 have no choice? If number six declines then does it go to the next person? (if there is one)

We’d have to discuss this option if it came up. I’d guess if #6 refused the 1 year term, it may then be offered to #7, and #6 would get nothing. There could be a lot of “what if’s”. We’ll just have to address them as they come up.

Hopefully #6 agrees that one year is better then none :).

[greyhounder]

@PCFrog wrote:

I would like to clarify that the position would be only filled assuming that #6 agrees to only one year. Is this true or not? Does #6 have no choice? If number six declines then does it go to the next person? (if there is one)

It almost sounds like some sort of math/statistics problem, doesn’t it? 😆

There are 5 open board positions, and 12 candidates. It should work out okay.

Bec

edit: ooops — now there are 13 candidates! Holy Moley!! It’s like Cache of the Month!!! 😆

[Ray]

@greyhounder wrote:

edit: ooops — now there are 13 candidates! Holy Moley!! It’s like Cache of the Month!!! 😆

And there are 12 more candidates that have not yet accepted or declined their first nomination!

With the interest our membership is showing in this election, the next few weeks should be very interesting. ~tb

[Jeremy]

@GrouseTales wrote:

I regret to announce that Bill, aka: Flushingrouse, has announced his resignation from the Board of Directors.

Thanks for all your hard work on the Board over the last year Bill. You played a big role in the planning and execution of the 2006 WGA Geo-Campout and Geo-Picnic. And I know you also spent some time trying to organize the WGA secretary stuff that I, Jeff T., and Ken B. accumulated over the years and kind of had in a jumble. 🙂

You definitely will be missed…

@GrouseTales wrote:

It was decided that the candidate ranking #6, based on the amount of votes received, will fill the vacant one year term.

Maybe the one year term should be offered to the candidate ranking #1… and if he/she doesn’t want it, it would be offered to #2, etc. I’m pretty sure one of the six winning candidates will want a 1 year term instead of a 2 year term. This would prevent the weird scenario where #6 (and maybe even 7, 8, 9, …) would not serve on the Board because they declined the 1 year term.

We’re breaking new ground here… this is not covered in the bylaws and obviously has not happened before.

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

Sorry to see you go FlushingGrouse, but best wishes and see you at events. Thanks for the time you have put in on the board!!

As per Jeremy’s idea…I have to agree. Offer the 1 yr position to the #1 ranking and let it flow downline. It would be a little weird for the #6 position to just have that thrown at them.

[Buy_The_Tie]

@Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu wrote:

…As per Jeremy’s idea…I have to agree. Offer the 1 yr position to the #1 ranking and let it flow downline. It would be a little weird for the #6 position to just have that thrown at them.

Technically, if this had happened at *any* other time, we would have held a special election. Since there was already an election going on, we simply “tacked” the position on at the end. (at least that was my thinking on the whole matter)

I would, however, entertain doing it Jeremy’s way if that’s what people want.

[EnergySaver]

I agree with the selected decision on assigned the 1 yr term to #6.

As was just stated, if this had happened at any other time, there would have been a special election to fill this short-term position. So in theory … if the WGA world picks their “Top 5” choices to fill then regular elections … then, again in theory, if a month later there had been an opening, it’s not too difficult to assume the potential that #6 in the pecking order would be a logical candidate to fill the opening (or at least a “worthy choice”). So, I believe this achieves the same sort of result, just in condensed time.

[Team Hemisphere Dancer]

As far as filling the vacant term in this years election. We are setting a precedence.

Now that the actual voting has started what is the way we are going about deciding this as it will be done this way in the future. Now is not the time to change what was decided before the vote started.

Edit:

After posting I found this on the BOD election page.
” The individual with the 6th highest vote total will fill the Board position vacated by William Pulvermacher (Flushingrouse), and therefore will only serve a 1-year term. “

[Jeremy]

I agree, it is too late to change things now that voting has begun.

I saw the 1 year term as being of value or potential benefit to some of the candidates, so I figured it should go to the candidate with the most votes first (if he/she wanted it).

Also, most people accepted their nomination before the resignation, and therefore expected a two year term if elected. By trickling the one year term down until it was accepted by one of the winning candidates, it would have ensured that it would have gone to someone who wanted it rather than being forced on someone who might be disappointed in the shortened term. (But then again, the 6th place person is lucky to get on the Board at all… so they better take their one year term and shut up. :))

[Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu]

Understandable on the decision, something to revisit in the future, since I am sure this won’t be a one time occurance. So….I’ll sit quietly in the same corner with ya Jeremy. LOL

[Team Hemisphere Dancer]

I understand the reasoning behind it. I just wanted to make sure that others didn’t think that the policy was going to change after the voting started.

[Author]

Posts