BoD nomination discussion thread.

OK, folks, getting back to business here, at least for this post, :laugh3:,

First, my thanks for the nomination, but I think MM will do a better job right now, spend more time on it, travel if needed (something I just don't do much of lately beyond Houston), MM has a little more enthusiasm for taking on the job right now than I do. If we get in a bind someday, I might take a temp fill in post if and when needed, and If I am able to handle things then, but for now I am officially bowing out of the race, and 3rding, fourthing, or what ever the nomination for MM as Sec/Treas.

Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but that makes 3 running un-opposed?
 
LOL! Man, I do divorces for people every day. I'm fully aware of the perils of marriage.

Maybe this is something that you can find as a way to respect marriage. When you're married, you get a larger tax deduction. :D

I get tax deductions by being self employed. If I ever figure out to make taxable income, I might need to consider that, :laugh3:
 
Yep, there is no opposition.

Kinda sad that you and I won't have to "campaign" though Mike. Given our distinctly different political views, it would have make for a good comedy. LOL

As the Klingon said in a very, very, old, old episode of Star Trek, "It would have been a glorious Battle".party1:

But don't you still need to make a "why should we vote for you speech" and answer questions, else you might get zero votes?:looser:
 
But don't you still need to make a "why should we vote for you speech" and answer questions, else you might get zero votes?:looser:

Fine...Fine....

You should vote for me cuz no one really wants the damn job or hassle that goes with it. The floor is now open for questions.
 
Fine...Fine....

You should vote for me cuz no one really wants the damn job or hassle that goes with it. The floor is now open for questions.

On that basis, you have my vote, frees me up to try and keep my POS running.
 
Just out of curiousity, I see that the bylaws provide for 5 BOD members, but all I ever are 3, 3 who are also the 4 officers called for in the bylaws.

Whats up with that?


I am not 100% sure. I know we can only have 3 mods in our forum and I also know that the National BoDs have one person for Treasurer and another for Recorder. I knew we did make a post for a RRC Event Organizer and he has access to our BoD forum... but I think that position is not too active right now. Plus I think that would be the one that would take the most "work" to run but like I said that post is kinda dead right now. So that two more positions which comes out to 5 positions.

Other than that... your guess is a good as mine.

Yes all three positions are running unopposed ATM (Kinda like last year..) I feel that we need to hold of the elections for a few more days just incase some one comes out of the proverbial wood and speaks up.
 
Yes all three positions are running unopposed ATM (Kinda like last year..) I feel that we need to hold of the elections for a few more days just incase some one comes out of the proverbial wood and speaks up.

Probably a good idea. I was busy the last week, and would not have known about the election accept that I was PMed about the nomination.
 
I am not sure that the size of active members in RRC warrants any more members needed for the BoD. I'm not opposed to the expansion mind you, I am just not sure that it is warranted. I mean, come on, we don't even have enough people that want to be BoD members to even hold an actual election.
 
I am fine with leaving nominations open for a few more days if you want. However, I agree with Ian, nominations were open for over two weeks. We had trouble finding someone to run for Treasurer/Secretary even uncontested. My opinion is that keeping nominations open would likely just postpone uncontested elections. I still am fine with doing that if you want, I was just stating my opinion.

I think a lot of the people who have been here (and red) over a year, just simply do not have the time. I am sure there are several people who have been red less than a year who would love to run, but just are not eligible. I feel that is why we had so much trouble finding candidates.
 
We were short handed the first year too based on the one year membership issue. Hell it took like 3 months just to locate and get the minimum number of national members needed to form a chapter.

I see no reason to hold up the elections. Hell let's get them elected before they wake up and change their minds!

I finally remembered why we set up the extra 2 BOD posts (I was one of the 3-4 guys that wrote our local chapter bylaws). We only need three for national, but the plan was to have room for 2 more BOD members when, due to the geographical size of the chapter, it might become critical, critical word being when, we needed to add regional people to promote regional meetings, activities, and those people needed authority to act like officers.

I think they can be added, when and as needed.
 
I actually talked to Kurt about that this morning. I think once the chapter grows a little more it will be good to add two "at large" positions on the BoD. This will allow us two more voting members on BoD issues. They won't necessarily have a lot of obligations, but more or less represent the membership in decisions. It would be nice if we could hold the "at large" position elections until after Officer elections, and then try to get nominees from the areas of the chapter that are not represented in the P/VP/Tr/Sec positions.

Does that make sense. Like I am from Texarkana AR TX, Kurt and Ian are from Texas, maybe have an "at large" member from LA, and one from OK. Just to make sure all areas are represented.
 
That was the general idea when the Chapter was formed. Sounds like a plan.
 
Back
Top