This topic contains 7 replies, has 6 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
With many new members to the WGA, is there any way to designate which canadate is an incumbant and how may previous years they have been on the BOD?
Do you just want the incumbent information published here, or somehow printed on the ballot? I’d hate to give candidates an advantage or disadvantage by marking or not marking them specially on the ballot. We work very hard to make sure there is a level playing field by randomizing the order of candidates on the ballot, only allowing a single web link per candidate, etc.
The only two incumbents running for re-election are:
Ralph Edwards
zuma
Has served one term on the Board: 2007-2009Anne Elsenpeter
Cache_boppin_BunnyFuFu
Has served one term on the Board: 2007-2009My two cents on this is that if a member is running for re-election it should be listed. After all part of the process should be making a determination of what a party has to offer. With those who are not running for re-election questions become very helpful and for those who are running for re-election we have the opportunity to also apraise what they accomplished in that postition besides asking questions.
So yes if they are running for re-election they should have the benefit or bear the responsibility of what they did and it should be posted that they are running for re-election (on the ballot)
I was thinking like a * or (I) after there name. I don’t know if it should be on a ballet, but at least on the list that is listed under BOD Election.
Respectfully disagree Cheezehead. Those members who are running for re-election as part of their campaign mention their contributions to the BOD, so I think it belongs on the ballot.
I am certainly not suggesting that if a person is running for re-election should not be allowed to discuss his or her accomplishments during their tenure.
I do not think we need to have how long a person has been a BOD member on the ballot, unless we are considering term limits (I am kidding about the limits)Pardon for posting in the Candidates’ Corner, but I have never seen anything (other than party affiliation) indicated on any ballot to distinguish one candidate from another. They even draw names for ballot placement to eliminate bias from listing alphabetically. I strongly believe that only names and voting directions should be listed on the ballot page.
Some voters will just vote for the first five on the ballot, some may vote for only one or two, some may anguish over having to limit their choices to only five. If a person wants to vote based on a candidate’s experience, he/she should look for that information in this forum or elsewhere where incumbents are identified. When results of voting are listed, that is where you may see asterisks or incumbents identified.
The biggest problem with the election is the small percentage of the membership that votes. Last year I had a hard time deciding who to vote for as it was my first opportunity. This year I’m happy to say that I have had the pleasure of meeting all of the candidates although that isn’t helping in my final decision. They are all dedicated and qualified, some just a little more than others. Any information that can be given to new members and first time voters will be a beneficial tool. It will only lead to more feeling of ownership and encouragement to get more involved. I know it has for me, but then again I now have trouble getting by without some exposure to geocaching on a daily basis. Got to go, there’s a new cache nearby. Don’t forget to vote.
WOW…3 current BOD members are not seeking re-election. First of all, thanks to all 3 of you for giving up your time and energy to serve on the WGA board. Thanks for your accomplishments as well. It would be interesting to find out why they are stepping down? It’s going to be hard to narrow down the 8 candidates to 5 for voting purposes. This may be the first time that we use all 5 votes. 😆
The forum ‘Candidates Corner 2009’ is closed to new topics and replies.