X-Message-Number: 30395
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:25:06 -0600 (CST)
From: <>
Subject: RE: some suggestions on voting methods


With all due respect to Dave Pizer, anything that takes more than three 
sentences to explain is too complicated.


What is needed is checks and balances that protect both against a 
non-accountable leadership and against a hostile takeover of the membership.


Again, I suggest that terms on the Board be limited, the Board nominate its 
successors, and confirmation of nominees by 3/4 of voting members be required.  
This provides the dual protections sought.  


Nomination would be mandatory, as would a special election if a nominee were not
confirmed.  The only problem is how to continue governance in the event of a 
protracted standoff in which the Board otherwise would dwindle away as the terms
expire.  Maybe the Board member would serve until replaced, and periodic 
special elections involving different nominees would be required.  Or, if the 
second nominee fails in the first special election, the members could nominate 
people by majority vote, subject to confirmation by the Board - switch of roles.


This is not to negate some of Dave's ideas, such as limiting voting membership 
to those who have been dues paying members for a period of years.

Mark Mugler

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=30395