Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

General information, announcements, and discussions about Westmarch, Amtgard, and the LARPing life

Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby deimos » Mon Feb 16, 2015 10:12 pm

A corpora amendment regarding the BoD election process was discussed at the WM BoD meeting. To that end, the election process should be clarified:

Amend/Add to Article IX, Section 1, Subsection 3:
IX.1.3.d: All Candidates must qualify with a simple majority confidence/no confidence vote.
IX.1.3.e: The winners of the election will be the five (5) people who pass a simple confidence vote with the highest number of confidence votes, with the 6th person reserved as the alternate member.

Please discuss.
Deimos
GMR of SSD
User avatar
deimos
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: SSD, Cullyfornia

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Fiks » Tue Feb 17, 2015 1:40 pm

Is this covered by Article V: Government, Section 1. Elections? I feel like it is. Specifically, Item 3:
Corpora wrote:3. In cases where a candidate is running unopposed, the candidate must pass a vote of confidence in order to win the election.
a. If a candidate loses a vote of confidence, anyone who qualified during Crown Qualifications may declare their intent to run for that office. A second election shall be held in one (1) week by the Prime Minister.

Now that I quote it though, it does seem to be largely focused on Crown elections thanks to that mention of Quals in sub item a. Since it's not explicitly directed at Crown elections though, item 3 should still affect all other elections, such as BoD members. That just leaves the problem of the word "unopposed." Since the BoD elections are handled elimination style, does that throw a wrench in this particular mechanic?

Now that I've thought and typed my way through all this, feel like the waters are getting muddied. This simple amendment might just be the best solution instead of trying to apply the above interpretation.
"How harmful overspecialization is. It cuts knowledge at a million points and leaves it bleeding."—Hari Seldon
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brotha', I hurt people. Bonk!
User avatar
Fiks
 
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Wavehaven

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby SirEuric » Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:43 am

The alternate should have to pass a simple majority also.
Sir Euric Bloodstone
SirEuric
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Thor's Freakin Refuge Baby!!!

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Lady Tamara » Wed Feb 18, 2015 7:59 am

It seems to me that if you make things more exclusionary, you will find that people will not want to run at all. If you do not have enough people to fill the BOD, and work hard to keep certain people from holding office, if will eventually cause loss of members due to drama.
Wife to Collin the Red
http://www.meetup.com/amtgard-sacramento
Tamara on the AmtWiki
O.R.K.
Facebook
Woman at Arms to Sir Francis of Ravensholm
User avatar
Lady Tamara
 
Posts: 2502
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 9:15 am
Location: Thor's Refuge & Mistyvale, Sacramento CA

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Porkins » Wed Feb 18, 2015 2:03 pm

Seeing as this has been commonplace for park officers it makes sense to extend the same rule to BoD elections. If a populace thinks a person is unable to do a job even though it would create a vacancy it should be within their ability to do so.
In times like these, it's helpful to remember that there have always been times like these- Paul Harvey
User avatar
Porkins
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 12:40 am

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Fiks » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:58 pm

SirEuric wrote:The alternate should have to pass a simple majority also.

deimos wrote:IX.1.3.d: All Candidates must qualify with a simple majority confidence/no confidence vote.


I feel that the bold word in the proposal covers that. The Alternates are taken from the candidate pool, who all have to pass the simple majority.

Lady Tamara wrote:It seems to me that if you make things more exclusionary, you will find that people will not want to run at all. If you do not have enough people to fill the BOD, and work hard to keep certain people from holding office, if will eventually cause loss of members due to drama.

I don't think I see this as being exclusionary. I feel like this clarifies the process. I mean if I tell someone that a candidate who failed to get a simple majority of confidence votes still got the position, I think they'd tell me I was mad.
"How harmful overspecialization is. It cuts knowledge at a million points and leaves it bleeding."—Hari Seldon
Grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brotha', I hurt people. Bonk!
User avatar
Fiks
 
Posts: 2564
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 9:57 pm
Location: Wavehaven

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Water Hammer » Sun Mar 01, 2015 6:39 pm

We constantly fill vacancies with those willing to step up. Sometimes they are not the most popular, but the only willing ones. I like the idea of a majority requirement, but am not sure about excluding people when they are the only willing candidates. We seem to have the mechanics available for popular removal of unwanted or nefarious office holders already within the corpora (with or without any factual basis for removal (all-thing can do that)).

I envision a dangerous challenge-able argument over this requirement in elections (might be due to quorum and core land vote arguments). Thowing my NPO glasses on I think I am against this change because we already have the tools for handling this (although admittedly more cumbersome).
Baronet Water Hammer, Stalwart of Crimsonwood
Crimsonwood Rocks!!! I am humbled by your friendships.
Amtgard is the greatest thing my kids ever dragged me into.
User avatar
Water Hammer
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: presently teleporting to a spot 10 feet behind you

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby deimos » Sun Mar 01, 2015 8:33 pm

I think the existing mechanism for dealing with this (althing for Impeachment) is much more brutal and carries a larger negative stigma than the majority of the voting populace not having faith in a candidate from the onset. If the populace does not believe you would carry the parks best interests and/or be a good candidate for the job, that would allow you to work with people to gain their trust and support. Once you've gone down the Impeachment road, that can stain a reputation for a long time.

I do not believe that "Anyone is better than no-one." Personally, I would not serve if the people did not want me to do so. But I would also expect one of those people who didn't have confidence in me to step forward and do the job instead.
Deimos
GMR of SSD
User avatar
deimos
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: SSD, Cullyfornia

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Collin the Red » Fri Mar 06, 2015 1:34 pm

So Do we have language to vote on this weekend? or is this for the April Althing?
Baron Collin MacAbee current King of Westmarch
Squire to Sir Smiley
User avatar
Collin the Red
 
Posts: 2359
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:11 pm
Location: Thor's Refuge

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby Water Hammer » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:28 am

I still believe anyone willing is better than no one and encourages us to work together with people who oppose our ideas.

I recommend voting against this amendment.
Baronet Water Hammer, Stalwart of Crimsonwood
Crimsonwood Rocks!!! I am humbled by your friendships.
Amtgard is the greatest thing my kids ever dragged me into.
User avatar
Water Hammer
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:39 pm
Location: presently teleporting to a spot 10 feet behind you

Re: Corpora change proposal: BoD Election process

Postby deimos » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:35 pm

I believe that a vacant seat is better than someone who the populace does not believe will act in their best interests. As it stands, one person can vote themselves in against an infinite number of no-confidence. One would hope a person who had that scenario come up would have the class to step back and decline the opsition while one of the infinite who voted no better step forward.
Deimos
GMR of SSD
User avatar
deimos
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Thu May 10, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: SSD, Cullyfornia


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests

cron