Eugene Maker Space Forums
Various Discussions...

Home » Public Forums » Discuss » Nominating Jher
Nominating Jher [message #14485] Sun, 29 October 2017 20:30 Go to next message
Tom Upchurch is currently offline  Tom Upchurch
Messages: 55
Registered: June 2017
Member
I would like to Nominate Jher as a candidate for next years EMS Board.
He has done a good job this year keeping meetings focused and running
smoothly. He also has good connections to U of O.

Tom
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Re: Nominating Jher [message #14487 is a reply to message #14485] Sun, 29 October 2017 21:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Bacarella is currently offline  Michael Bacarella
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2017
Member
Seconded!

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:30 PM, tom upchurch
wrote:

>
> I would like to Nominate Jher as a candidate for next years EMS Board. He
> has done a good job this year keeping meetings focused and running
> smoothly. He also has good connections to U of O.
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
Re: Nominating Jher [message #14605 is a reply to message #14485] Sat, 25 November 2017 21:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
info is currently offline  info
Messages: 1
Registered: November 2017
Junior Member
Dear Eugene Makerspace,
Happy Thanksgiving and Holidays to all!

It is with the continuing good will and support of our membership that I
accept this nomination to the 2018 Board of Directors.

Please give Tom Upchurch a big round of applause, he has not only been an
amazing President, he kept EMS alive. I thank him personally.

GO TEAM!
Jher

----
On Sun, October 29, 2017 8:24 pm, Michael Bacarella wrote:

Seconded!

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:30 PM, tom upchurch
wrote:

I would like to Nominate Jher as a candidate for next years EMS Board.
He has done a good job this year keeping meetings focused and running
smoothly. He also has good connections to U of O.

Tom
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Re: Nominating Jher [message #14606 is a reply to message #14605] Sat, 25 November 2017 22:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Bacarella is currently offline  Michael Bacarella
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2017
Member
I got the link to vote earlier today and already voted and Jher was not on
the list. The site also won't let me go back and change my votes.

I notice from Tom's earlier email: Nominations will close on *November 30th*,
so make sure you get all of your nominations in before then.

Are we supposed to be able to start voting before the nominations period
has closed?

On Nov 25, 2017 21:25, wrote:

> Dear Eugene Makerspace,
> Happy Thanksgiving and Holidays to all!
>
> It is with the continuing good will and support of our membership that I
> accept this nomination to the 2018 Board of Directors.
>
> Please give Tom Upchurch a big round of applause, he has not only been an
> amazing President, he kept EMS alive. I thank him personally.
>
> GO TEAM!
> Jher
>
> ----
> On Sun, October 29, 2017 8:24 pm, Michael Bacarella wrote:
>
> Seconded!
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 8:30 PM, tom upchurch
> wrote:
>
> I would like to Nominat
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14607 is a reply to message #14606] Sat, 25 November 2017 22:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
A second message went out on November 16th..with a revised schedule.

Tom Upchurch via Announce: "Nominations need to be accepted by 10:00 AM on
Saturday, November 25th. The election will take place from 11 AM that day
until 11 AM December 2."

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:02 AM, tom upchurch
wrote:

> Things are coming together for the EMS board election.
>
> Nominations need to be accepted by 10:00 AM on Saturday, November 25th.
> The election will take place from 11 AM that day until 11 AM December 2.
> Voting is either online or in person at the shop. We eill use Opavote for
> the election. *www.opavote.com * I will be
> running the election software. Any member who is not running is welcome to
> observe.
>
> There are currently six candidates for the board.
>
> Karen Englebeck
> Joe Tyndall
> Kevin Forsythe
> Jeffery Garman
> Ben Hallert
> Pioter Esden-Tempski
>
> There are eight nominees who have yet to accep
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14608 is a reply to message #14607] Sun, 26 November 2017 09:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Clif is currently offline  Clif
Messages: 900
Registered: March 2012
Senior Member
Yep,

Jher came up with that schedule. I did ask him at that meeting or the
one before if he was running and he wouldn't tell me, maybe he hadn't
decided yet. There were several calls to get waivers in (which can still
happen for voters) and the last check of the ballot on the board list
etc... So I hope he saw some of those emails. Anyway, I guess we can
talk about it tomorrow or Tuesday when Tom and I get back from being out
of town.

    Ciao,
    Clif

On 11/25/2017 10:44 PM, Karen Englebeck wrote:
> A second message went out on November 16th..with a revised schedule.
>
> Tom Upchurch via Announce: "Nominations need to be accepted by 10:00
> AM on Saturday, November 25th.  The election will take place from 11
> AM that day until 11 AM December 2."
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:02 AM, tom upchurch
> wrote:
>
> Things are coming together for the EMS board election.
>
> Nominations need to be accepted by 10:00 AM on Saturda
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14609 is a reply to message #14607] Sun, 26 November 2017 09:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kevin forsythe is currently offline  kevin forsythe
Messages: 12
Registered: June 2016
Junior Member
re: nomination acceptance deadline
Seems to me if Tom can decree an arbitrary deadline to accept nominations,
he can also update/amend said arbitrary deadline. I mean, is that deadline
codified in our governing documents?

re: can I change my online vote?
I already submitted my vote online but would have voted differently if
Jher's name was on the list. It does not seem like I can change my vote
online either.

--Tom, can you please void the online votes already submitted and update
the candidate choices to include Jher?


-Kevin




On Nov 25, 2017 10:44 PM, "Karen Englebeck"
wrote:

> A second message went out on November 16th..with a revised schedule.
>
> Tom Upchurch via Announce: "Nominations need to be accepted by 10:00 AM
> on Saturday, November 25th. The election will take place from 11 AM that
> day until 11 AM December 2."
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:02 AM, tom upchurch
> wrote:
>
>> Things are coming together for the EMS board
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14610 is a reply to message #14609] Sun, 26 November 2017 10:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
I'm not sure this is true, because we're supposed to conduct the board
election in a fair and reasonable. Once we've announced a deadline, we
can't really change it without a reason, and we'd probably actually
have to send out a mailing!

I propose the board hold an emergency meeting and fix this. You can do
this in 5 minutes over the phone, or online using any type of chat
technology.

Furthermore, if the board refuses to adopt such changes before the
election is completed, I propose we hold a special meeting afterwards,
vote on acceptance of Jher as a candidate, adopt a fixed election
schedule for future elections, and also hold a new board election at
that time. We can force a Special Meeting with signatures of only 5%
of the voting members, which means 2 people.

Lets not just tolerate the changing of important dates after they're
announced, lets fix it!

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 9:21 AM, kevin forsythe wrote:
>
>
> re: nomination acceptance deadline
> Seems to me if Tom can decree an arb
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14611 is a reply to message #14610] Sun, 26 November 2017 11:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Rick Osgood is currently offline  Rick Osgood
Messages: 1103
Registered: October 2011
Senior Member
I think we really should stick to the original announced deadlines to avoid
confusion and anyone claiming shenanigans with the election.

On Nov 26, 2017 10:53 AM, "Paris John Sinclair"
wrote:

> I'm not sure this is true, because we're supposed to conduct the board
> election in a fair and reasonable. Once we've announced a deadline, we
> can't really change it without a reason, and we'd probably actually
> have to send out a mailing!
>
> I propose the board hold an emergency meeting and fix this. You can do
> this in 5 minutes over the phone, or online using any type of chat
> technology.
>
> Furthermore, if the board refuses to adopt such changes before the
> election is completed, I propose we hold a special meeting afterwards,
> vote on acceptance of Jher as a candidate, adopt a fixed election
> schedule for future elections, and also hold a new board election at
> that time. We can force a Special Meeting with signatures of only 5%
>
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14612 is a reply to message #14610] Sun, 26 November 2017 11:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
Paris, I'm not sure where you got that 5% number... I've been doing some
digging into the Governing documents..what I'm seeing is that a special
membership meeting can be called, but requires a petition, which in turn
requires 1/3 of the general membership in good standing, in order to call
said special meeting. This would then require 7 days notice to be sent to
every member via postal mail (first class is specifically called out), or
30-60 days notice if sent by 'other means'. This physical meeting
requirement to hold a vote on an issue could be suspended if you get
literally every single member in good standing to sign off on it, but the
notice requirements don't seem to be optional for membership issues.

My continued digging also indicates that the election could be re-held.. in
March (next regular meeting as defined as happening immediately following
the last board meeting of a quarter, assuming of course that it literally
doesn't mean 'the moment the board meeting concludes', but simply 'as soon
as is
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14613 is a reply to message #14612] Sun, 26 November 2017 11:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
I got it here: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/65.204

We can add extra ways to call meetings in the bylaws, but there is
always still a fallback there in 1(b) for 2%.

Everything else is the same way, we can put whatever system we want
into our governing documents, but there are still fallback
decision-making methods outlined in the laws that can't be removed.
That is why it says "Except as provided in the articles or bylaws..."
instead of something like "Unless otherwise..."

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Karen Englebeck
wrote:
> Paris, I'm not sure where you got that 5% number... I've been doing some
> digging into the Governing documents..what I'm seeing is that a special
> membership meeting can be called, but requires a petition, which in turn
> requires 1/3 of the general membership in good standing, in order to call
> said special meeting. This would then require 7 days notice to be sent to
> every member via postal mail (first class is specifically call
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14614 is a reply to message #14613] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
I want to add also that in the past on the issue of removing board
members, there is a procedure to do it by member vote.

Oversight is the responsibility of the board, and when people quit
instead of providing that oversight, it is dubious for them to claim
that they were doing it in protest when their responsibility is to fix
the problem! Before quitting, if they had simply told the members
about the problem, in a clear way and not in a way that requires
receiving a secret document, then I could have explained the procedure
at the time and provided assistance with the steps. People just throw
up their hands and quit without even asking for help, and then they
present it is some sort of noble act!

We're stuck in a weird valley where people are too arrogant to ask for
help, and yet haven't done enough research to know the answer.
Flailing and chaos ensues. But almost all the chaos is stuff that has
simple, mainstream answers and solutions, that are easy to adopt if we
simply _value_good_governance_. That's a
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14615 is a reply to message #14611] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Bacarella is currently offline  Michael Bacarella
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2017
Member
On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Rick Osgood
wrote:

> I think we really should stick to the original announced deadlines to
> avoid confusion and anyone claiming shenanigans with the election.
>

Isn't it too late for that? If we rebooted the election, any candidate
that Jher beats out for a seat on the BoD can now claim shenanigans. It's
a mess either way.

Although I seconded his nomination it's clear that the only good faith
solution is for Jher to withdraw his candidacy to avoid putting the
community through this.

On Nov 26, 2017 10:53 AM, "Paris John Sinclair"
> wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure this is true, because we're supposed to conduct the board
>> election in a fair and reasonable. Once we've announced a deadline, we
>> can't really change it without a reason, and we'd probably actually
>> have to send out a mailing!
>>
>> I propose the board hold an emergency meeting and fix this. You can do
>> this in 5 minutes over th
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14616 is a reply to message #14615] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
Wait, how can that be the only "good faith solution" when other
solutions have already been presented?

I hereby document that my proposed solution was made in Good Faith. I
also recognize Good Faith in the proposals made by Karen, Kevin, and
Rick.

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Michael Bacarella
wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Rick Osgood
> wrote:
>>
>> I think we really should stick to the original announced deadlines to
>> avoid confusion and anyone claiming shenanigans with the election.
>
>
> Isn't it too late for that? If we rebooted the election, any candidate that
> Jher beats out for a seat on the BoD can now claim shenanigans. It's a mess
> either way.
>
> Although I seconded his nomination it's clear that the only good faith
> solution is for Jher to withdraw his candidacy to avoid putting the
> community through this.
>
>> On Nov 26, 2017 10:53 AM, "Paris John Sinclair"
>> wro
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14617 is a reply to message #14614] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ben Hallert is currently offline  Ben Hallert
Messages: 188
Registered: April 2013
Senior Member
Paris, are you fucking kidding me? Your message is so desperately unfair, I don't know what to say. I can only assume I'm one of the people you aim your swipe at because I am one of the 2017 board members who resigned this year. If you will take the time to review the minutes, you will see that I called for the removal of a board member, we held meetings that included much of the membership, I was repeatedly brow-beaten into backing off, and finally I felt I had to resign for my own health.

Another boardmember also worked tirelessly for several months to try and fix the bullying problem until she hit her own breaking point. She was public every step along the way and open with her concerns and again, the "don't rock the boat, can't we all just get along?" narrative mixed with barbs from folks like you and Michael kept going until she had her own personal breaking point, at least that's how it looked from the outside.

Finally, the ONLY board member who put together a 'war file' and created the re
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14618 is a reply to message #14617] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
Swearing at me in front of the group?! I STRONGLY OBJECT.

Ben, please step down from any involvement in governance, this behavior is
NOT ACCEPTABLE.

On Nov 26, 2017 12:33 PM, "Ben Hallert" wrote:

> Paris, are you fucking kidding me? Your message is so desperately unfair,
> I don't know what to say. I can only assume I'm one of the people you aim
> your swipe at because I am one of the 2017 board members who resigned this
> year. If you will take the time to review the minutes, you will see that I
> called for the removal of a board member, we held meetings that included
> much of the membership, I was repeatedly brow-beaten into backing off, and
> finally I felt I had to resign for my own health.
>
> Another boardmember also worked tirelessly for several months to try and
> fix the bullying problem until she hit her own breaking point. She was
> public every step along the way and open with her concerns and again, the
> "don't rock the boat,
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14619 is a reply to message #14617] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
In fact, this is exactly the type of bullying we need to root out if
we're going to survive and be able to attract new members without them
quitting from being treated this way.

Participation should not result in this type of bullying and
namecalling. My complaints have always been followed by additional
"drama" and problems from the board that proves poor governance;
calling out bad governance is a normal, correct thing to do;
complaints about official actions of the board is not bullying, it is
participation! Namecalling and being dismissive of proposed solutions,
that is bullying.

And there was a secret document shopped around. That is a fact. I
protested it at the time, and if there was some issue with that
characterization, it should have been explained and clarified then,
instead of saved up for use in bullying now. You're getting offended
but you don't have a valid reason; if I believe a document was sent
around in an inappropriate way, that is a complaint in good faith!

If you strongly di
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14620 is a reply to message #14617] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeffrey Garman is currently offline  Jeffrey Garman
Messages: 141
Registered: December 2015
Senior Member
Let's concentrate on the matter at hand people. Which I believe is the
lofty goal of running a clean election, one that is transparent, one that
is fair. It is my opinion that Jher should have been on the ballot since
he accepted the nomination before the stated deadline. I would like to
have the option of voting for Jher. As a current candidate I assure you I
will not call shenanigans if the election process is rebooted. I think if
we get assurances from all the current candidates no one will will call
foul for a reboot and we can elect a new bright eyed and bushy tailed BoD.

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Ben Hallert wrote:

> Paris, are you fucking kidding me? Your message is so desperately unfair,
> I don't know what to say. I can only assume I'm one of the people you aim
> your swipe at because I am one of the 2017 board members who resigned this
> year. If you will take the time to review the minutes, you will see that I
> called for the removal of a board member, we held
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14621 is a reply to message #14485] Sun, 26 November 2017 12:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ben Hallert is currently offline  Ben Hallert
Messages: 188
Registered: April 2013
Senior Member
Re-sending, Paris seems to have removed discuss from the thread.

"Before quitting, if they had simply told the members
about the problem"

I told the board about the problem. We had message threads and board
meetings and even a giant, well-attended-by-the-membership meeting about my
request that Clif step down from the board.

"in a clear way and not in a way that requires
receiving a secret document"

The only person with a secret document was Clif, the board member whom I
was asking to step down. He also did not resign from the board.

"People just throwup their hands and quit without even asking for help, and
then they present it is some sort of noble act!"

Both Tanda and I repeatedly requested help, and neither of us presented our
resignation as a 'noble act'.

You lied. Your antagonism and dishonesty in this conversation is shameful
and you are the aggressor party.

- Ben

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Paris John Sinclair wrote:[/color]

> Ben, you just made a
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14622 is a reply to message #14621] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
I said "told the members" not "told the board," so please clarify that
your accusation of lying was false.

That's exactly it. You used a procedure that failed to solve the
problem, I'm saying there was an additional procedure that would have
solved it. You're responding with anger, namecalling, and a false
accusation of lying. That is not acceptable behavior for anybody,
certainly not for a board candidate.

The way you react with anger, that is never acceptable in the context
of running a non-profit. People will disagree; that is normal and a
part of the process. If you take a leadership role, people will have
complaints; they are right to have complaints, because it is part of
the process! Calling them names and shouting them down is just
bullying, it is never acceptable.


On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Ben Hallert wrote:
> Re-sending, Paris seems to have removed discuss from the thread.
>
> "Before quitting, if they had simply told the members
> about the prob
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14623 is a reply to message #14620] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
kevin forsythe is currently offline  kevin forsythe
Messages: 12
Registered: June 2016
Junior Member
as a member also running for a board seat, I too would like to state that
if Jher is allowed to run and fairly wins a board seat and I do not get
enough votes for a seat, I will respect the election results and will not
declare any 'shenanigans' nor contest the results.

-Kevin




On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Jeffrey Garman
wrote:

> Let's concentrate on the matter at hand people. Which I believe is the
> lofty goal of running a clean election, one that is transparent, one that
> is fair. It is my opinion that Jher should have been on the ballot since
> he accepted the nomination before the stated deadline. I would like to
> have the option of voting for Jher. As a current candidate I assure you I
> will not call shenanigans if the election process is rebooted. I think if
> we get assurances from all the current candidates no one will will call
> foul for a reboot and we can elect a new bright eyed and bushy tailed BoD.
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:32 PM,
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14624 is a reply to message #14623] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ben Hallert is currently offline  Ben Hallert
Messages: 188
Registered: April 2013
Senior Member
I agree with Jeffrey and Kevin Re: Jher and would also have no objection to restarting the election with him added.

I also really valued his hard work in seeking consensus during some of the board's most troubling times and hope the membership is given the opportunity to decide to have him continue in this important role.

Go Team No-Shenanigans!

- Ben
_____________________________
From: kevin forsythe
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: [EMS Discuss] Nominating Jher
To: EMS Discuss


as a member also running for a board seat, I too would like to state that if Jher is allowed to run and fairly wins a board seat and I do not get enough votes for a seat, I will respect the election results and will not declare any 'shenanigans' nor contest the results.

-Kevin




On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 12:53 PM, Jeffrey Garman wrote:
Let's concentrate on the matter at hand people. Which I believe is the lofty goal of running a clean election, one that is transparent, one that is fair. It is my opinion
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14625 is a reply to message #14624] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jeffrey Garman is currently offline  Jeffrey Garman
Messages: 141
Registered: December 2015
Senior Member
Three down - I think that leaves seven -

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ben Hallert wrote:

> I agree with Jeffrey and Kevin Re: Jher and would also have no objection
> to restarting the election with him added.
>
> I also really valued his hard work in seeking consensus during some of the
> board's most troubling times and hope the membership is given the
> opportunity to decide to have him continue in this important role.
>
> Go Team No-Shenanigans!
>
> - Ben
> _____________________________
> From: kevin forsythe
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [EMS Discuss] Nominating Jher
> To: EMS Discuss
>
>
>
> as a member also running for a board seat, I too would like to state that
> if Jher is allowed to run and fairly wins a board seat and I do not get
> enough votes for a seat, I will respect the election results and will not
> declare any 'shenanigans' nor contest the results.
>
> -Kevin
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14626 is a reply to message #14625] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Piotr Esden-Tempski is currently offline  Piotr Esden-Tempski
Messages: 62
Registered: August 2013
Member
I also agree that Jher should get a fair chance to run for the board. I will not raise any objections if the election gets restarted.

Cheers,
Piotr


> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Jeffrey Garman wrote:
>
> Three down - I think that leaves seven -
>
> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Ben Hallert wrote:
> I agree with Jeffrey and Kevin Re: Jher and would also have no objection to restarting the election with him added.
>
> I also really valued his hard work in seeking consensus during some of the board's most troubling times and hope the membership is given the opportunity to decide to have him continue in this important role.
>
> Go Team No-Shenanigans!
>
> - Ben
> _____________________________
> From: kevin forsythe
> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 1:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [EMS Discuss] Nominating Jher
> To: EMS Discuss
>
>
>
> as a member also running for a board seat, I too would like to state that if Jher is
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14627 is a reply to message #14623] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
Just a point of order then.

If we *DO* suspend the current election and revert back to the November
30th nomination deadline..then when will the election itself be held?

Is less 34ish hours (November 30 (time unspecified), to December 2 at
11am) long enough to hold an election that the membership as a whole will
consider binding for a year? One of the governing documents
https://www.eugenemakerspace.com/wiki/Sites/EmsVoting calls for 'about 2
weeks' of electronic voting prior to the polls closing. Do we then need the
current board to formally suspend or alter the governing documents so we
can hold the meeting later than the first Saturday of December? What are
the prescribed notification requirements for such a change? Do we, as
non-BOD-members have to follow the process to call a special meeting of the
BOD to force a procedural vote on this? Or will the board step in to
schedule itself a special meeting to discuss this?

Moreover... there's this exchange, which seemed connected:

On 11/25/2017 10:44 PM, K
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14628 is a reply to message #14627] Sun, 26 November 2017 13:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
From the November 15 BOD meeting Minutes, Jher, Tom and Clif were all
present:

*Tom will send out an announcement with the names of those nominated and
> who those have accepted their nominations (nomination need to accepted by
> 10:00am on Saturday, November 25th—to ensure at least a week for the
> election). The election will take place between 11:00am Saturday, November
> 25th and 11:00am December 2nd online, and in-person at the Eugene
> Makerspace on December 2nd between 10:00-11:00am. *
>

https://www.eugenemakerspace.com/wiki/Sites/EMSBoDMeetingMin utes111517

Technical note. The board of directors, with a mere 2/3 vote, has nearly
unchecked power to alter and supersede all organizational governing
documents.



On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Karen Englebeck
wrote:

> Just a point of order then.
>
> If we *DO* suspend the current election and revert back to the November
> 30th nomination deadline..then when will the election itself be held?
>
> Is
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14629 is a reply to message #14627] Sun, 26 November 2017 15:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
As non-directors, to call for a special meeting we have to present the
signed demand to the Secretary, and then if it is not scheduled within
30 days the person presenting the demand gets to schedule the vote.
(source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/65.204 )
So the board can make it happen faster; 7 days if they send notice by
First Class (or registered) Mail, or 30 days if sent any other way,
and the meeting is to be held not more than 60 days after the notice.
(source: https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/65.214 )

That's why it is just so much better if the current BoD can just hold
an emergency board meeting and "fix it" before a meeting has actually
happened. That requires no notice other than to board members. And
votes cast before the meeting are more scheduled than cast, and
they're not binding, if people have complaints about that we can just
look at the steps and determine if the election had been completed or
not. Lets not do the wrong thing just because doing the right thing
could theoreticall
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14630 is a reply to message #14628] Sun, 26 November 2017 16:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
Karen, that's less than 30 days, so unless they planned to mail out a
notice then that seems to fall short of their notice obligations.

"(3) Notice is fair and reasonable if:

(a) The corporation notifies its members of the place, date and time
of each annual, regular and special meeting of members no fewer than
seven days, or if notice is mailed by other than first class or
registered mail, no fewer than 30 nor more than 60 days before the
meeting;"

Once the meeting happens, if there is a quorum and a vote happens it
stands, but as of right now the scheduled meeting is not fair and
reasonable in my opinion. (I am not a lawyer, these are just my
personal opinions of our rights and responsibilities as members)



On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Karen Englebeck
wrote:
> From the November 15 BOD meeting Minutes, Jher, Tom and Clif were all
> present:
>
>> Tom will send out an announcement with the names of those nominated and
>> who those have accepted their nominations (n
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14633 is a reply to message #14630] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
You're assuming that people got the first email with the November 30th
date, and not the second email with the board's updated nomination
deadlines for a November 25th date. I got it. I, in fact, sought
clarification with Tom about the date change.

If we now reverse that decision, and wait til 11:59:59 pm on November 30th
(because no time on that date was specified in the original notice), that
leaves just 34 hours to send out new ballot links, and receive votes before
the December 2 @ 11am deadline (that was already specified in the original
notice, and the second one). Combining this with the situation that
regardless of all of this, ballots have been sent out and people have
already voted.. there might be some people not 'in the loop' on this
discuss list.

How are those people going to feel, having their properly submitted votes
thrown out, because even after the board decided to change the deadline, a
board member missed that deadline, so the board unilaterally decided to
declare the whole election inva
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14634 is a reply to message #14633] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Paris John Sinclair is currently offline  Paris John Sinclair
Messages: 80
Registered: May 2016
Member
That's exactly the rub; the board has already bungled it, and there is
already no way to avoid the "constitutional crisis."

The correct question is which resolution best serves the mission of Eugene
Makerspace, not what decision makes people happiest. In my opinion, letting
everybody nominated within the originally-announced time period for
nominations is a totally reasonable resolution, and consistent with the
purpose of board elections.

Anybody unhappy that their first vote wasn't counted would get to vote
again; everybody would still get their vote counted. They haven't been
harmed in any way, it is a very minor inconvenience to vote again.

On Nov 26, 2017 6:01 PM, "Karen Englebeck"
wrote:

> You're assuming that people got the first email with the November 30th
> date, and not the second email with the board's updated nomination
> deadlines for a November 25th date. I got it. I, in fact, sought
> clarification with Tom about the date change.
>
> If we now re
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14635 is a reply to message #14633] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Michael Bacarella is currently offline  Michael Bacarella
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2017
Member
I find myself agreeing with Karen. (?!)

A carefully brokered peace was made in October with the understanding that
a new board would be elected soon and everyone's grievances would soon be
moot. I don't particularly agree with the fine details of that peace
brokering (for a number of reasons), but on the plus side things have been
relatively stable so it's got big ups from that fact alone.

It's unfortunate that the paperwork got screwed up in the election, but so
far the only affected party is Jher! While it's tragic that Jher is
affected, you can't even argue the org unfairly marginalized him because he
was on the BoD! He marginalized himself. Again, sad, probably a little
embarrassing, but not unfair. Unbelievably, the course of least resistance
here is for Jher to withdraw and let the otherwise smoothly flowing
election complete.

I really hope Jher can see to the greater good here and withdraw his
candidacy, rather than force EMS into an election controversy; it would
really be snatching defeat fro
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14636 is a reply to message #14635] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Karen Englebeck is currently offline  Karen Englebeck
Messages: 55
Registered: September 2017
Member
As much as I want to agree with you here... he's not the only one affected
by this. Eric Hartman, Bruce Cooley, Weston Turner, John Burridge, Kassandra
Kaplan, and Michelle Kaplan were also nominees who have not yet responded.
Addiionally, 'the deadline' also affects whether other nominations could be
made, so that means every single member's ability to nominate someone or be
nominated is also affected.

It's a golmogging pile of felgercarb, no matter how we look at it.



On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Michael Bacarella <
EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:

> I find myself agreeing with Karen. (?!)
>
> A carefully brokered peace was made in October with the understanding that
> a new board would be elected soon and everyone's grievances would soon be
> moot. I don't particularly agree with the fine details of that peace
> brokering (for a number of reasons), but on the plus side things have been
> relatively stable so it's got big ups from that fact alone.
>
> It's unfortunate
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14637 is a reply to message #14636] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bruce Cooley is currently offline  Bruce Cooley
Messages: 10
Registered: February 2013
Junior Member
Clif reached out to me soon after my nomination about my membership status, which he could find no record of. I replied to him that I have never actually been a member, despite having been on this email list for years and having attended part of one board meeting. I respectfully declined the nomination, though I appreciate it as a vote of confidence.

Bruce Cooley

----- Original Message -----
From: Karen Englebeck
To: Michael Bacarella
Cc: EMS Discuss ; Paris John Sinclair
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: [EMS Discuss] Nominating Jher


As much as I want to agree with you here... he's not the only one affected by this. Eric Hartman, Bruce Cooley, Weston Turner, John Burridge, Kassandra Kaplan, and Michelle Kaplan were also nominees who have not yet responded. Addiionally, 'the deadline' also affects whether other nominations could be made, so that means every single member's ability to nominate someone or be nominated is also affected.


It's a golmogging pile of f
...

Re: Nominating Jher [message #14638 is a reply to message #14636] Sun, 26 November 2017 18:59 Go to previous message
Michael Bacarella is currently offline  Michael Bacarella
Messages: 58
Registered: June 2017
Member
On Nov 26, 2017 18:31, "Karen Englebeck" wrote:

As much as I want to agree with you here... he's not the only one affected
by this. Eric Hartman, Bruce Cooley, Weston Turner, John Burridge, Kassandra
Kaplan, and Michelle Kaplan were also nominees who have not yet responded.
Addiionally, 'the deadline' also affects whether other nominations could be
made, so that means every single member's ability to nominate someone or be
nominated is also affected.


I agree, but Jher is the only one effectively affected. Unless someone
else comes forward to complain about this procedural mishap denying them
their rights (any more nominations or accepted nominations), Jher is in a
unique position to end the controversy now by withdrawing. It's tenuous,
but it remains a way we can move forward with the least chaos.

It's a golmogging pile of felgercarb, no matter how we look at it.



On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Michael Bacarella <
EMAIL HIDDEN> wrote:

> I find myself agreeing with Karen. (?!)
&
...

Previous Topic: Mini treasurers report
Next Topic: Candidate Statement
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon May 21 13:46:25 PDT 2018

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01855 seconds