Marvin--either pay your dues or go away--you have nothing do to with this, and your comments are not helping Jay or anyone else. For the 4 years that I have been on the board the nomination committee has always presented the state to the BOD first and it has been approved, it does not matter what the bylaws say there is history which would stand up in court here--bylaws a guide lines and history is more compelling in cases like this.

Andy

-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of Marvin Johnston Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 4:34 PM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board

Andy and Al,

Here is a direct quote from the current bylaws:

Article VI Elections (from current bylaws approved in 2000)

Section 2. A nominating committee appointed by the President with the concurrence of the Board, shall meet prior to the election to consider and submit the names of qualified candidates for nomination as officers and directors, at the October Club meeting next preceding the election and to all voting members in writing in advance of the election. Additional nominations may be made from the floor prior to the election.

Note there is nothing said about needing board approval.

Thanks!

Marvin

On 2013-11-11 15:14, Andrew Seybold wrote:

Did the board of Directors approve this slate Al?

Andy

-----Original Message----- From: Alan Soenke [mailto:ajsoenke@aol.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 3:13 PM To: Andrew Seybold Cc: bgordon@rain.org; sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: Re: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board

1. Darryl needs to get board approval on any slate the nominating

committee provides before it is posted. 2. Any member in good standing can stand up at a meeting of the general membership and present themselves as a candidate or be nominated from the floor by another provided they concur. Al

Sent from my iPhone

...

On Nov 11, 2013, at 11:48 AM, Andrew Seybold aseybold@andrewseybold.com wrote:

Bruce--well said and I have to admit that I was surprised when I saw the list of nominations for the officers--I wish, as a member of the club I had a choice of multiple candidates for some of the offices--a no vote is my only option I guess but normally those running for office for any Board I am associated with at least have to post a bio and a several paragraph statement about why they want to run for office and what their plans are for executing that office--looks as if this time we are stuck with some candidates that I just cannot support in good conscience. Further the list was just made available to us. Some of the people on here have felt as if the move to a smaller board was to gain power for the few--now what I am seeing is that the nominations are designed to serve the few who have been working in the back-ground to set-up their own agenda instead of giving the members a far opportunity to voice their thoughts and opinions.

Andy W6AMS

-----Original Message----- From: sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com [mailto:sbarc-list-bounces@lists.netlojix.com] On Behalf Of bgordon@rain.org Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 11:02 AM To: sbarc-list@lists.netlojix.com Subject: [Sbarc-list] New, smaller board

Hi all,

There has certainly been a lot of of opinion and arguement on this list recently about club organization and leadership. Daryl has provided a set of candidates for the existing club offices. We have no information on who would stand for election for the positions under the proposed new bylaws. Because of the increased responsibilities for each member of a smaller board, it would be important to know who would be willing to serve on it. Just like in the "real world", the quality of the result usually depends more on the character of the person than the job description.

Bruce N6OLT

_______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list _______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list

_______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list

_______________________________________________ SBARC-list mailing list SBARC-list@lists.netlojix.com http://lists.netlojix.com/mailman/listinfo/sbarc-list

On 11/11/13 5:09 PM, Andrew Seybold wrote:

For the 4 years that I have been on the board the nomination committee has always presented the state to the BOD first and it has been approved, it does not matter what the bylaws say there is history which would stand up in court here--bylaws a guide lines and history is more compelling in cases like this.

Wait a minute....

Did Andy just say,

"That's the way we've always done it and it's worked fine, so we shouldn't suddenly change anything"?

P.S. They aren't called "byguidelines". There's a reason for that, and that's why changes shouldn't be done hastily or on a whim, especially if the proposed changes are full of errors.

-- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV