11-03-2011, 08:18 AM
@afwjam, In the past, the candidates who were nominated were made known rather quickly after the Sept 30 deadline. The Board has chosen to use the election committee to 'validate' the candidates, somewhat extraneous of the BL as the only requirement to run is to be a member and in good standing, and last Saturday with no small effort the 10 candidates were approved for recommendation to the Board. Subsequent to that -- early Monday morning out of the blue the VP went into the office to further validate by signature verification. This was never discussed at a committee level, and again, is extraneous of the BL which designates the secretary for member verification.
DanielP asks a valid question: Have the other candidates voiced their opinion on removing the speed bumps. I believe that is a fair question to ask. Or phrased differently, if elected to they see a clear path forward to removal? Considering our recent past I would imagine any such action would result in threats of lawsuit, at the very least. If the BL changes move forward there is one to amend the BL to allow mediation be required before litigation.
To answer your question about the president's election; if you still retain your copy of the President's Report sent to all members in August, turn to the backside, final paragraph you will find the Board approved using member monies to not so subtly advocate the vote [reelection]for the president, the secretary [by full name] and the election of one other member by allowing the solicitous comments contained in the final paragraph. The other 7 nominees have thus far been sent to the Attorney for verification of legitimacy because their nominations were submitted on what was advanced/alleged as HSCA letterhead. When the attorney let them know they could not disqualify based on that he suggested that the more illegible signatures without an additional line where the signer would print the name could be used to disqualify because they could not verify the individuals in question were members if they did not know who wrote the name. That turned into quite a fiasco because some on the committee would not settle for the wife of one of the questionable signatures verifying her husband's, of 44 yrs, signature. They expected him to drop what he was doing and drive to the meeting right then and vouch for his signature. After all that, they still had someone --- not the secretary -- verifying signatures. At this juncture your guess is as good as anyone not on the Board as to who the candidates are other than the 3 already campaigning through the President's Report to members sent in August.
The upcoming Meeting on Thursday evening, Nov 10 has as part of the Agenda discussion on policy for Speed Bumps and a report from the Election Committee. I mention this because Members have a time to address items on the Agenda for 3 minutes before the business of the meeting gets started. That would be a place for members to take the time to comment on the agenda items that most interest them, like the Speed Bumps and Candidates.
Question Authority!
DanielP asks a valid question: Have the other candidates voiced their opinion on removing the speed bumps. I believe that is a fair question to ask. Or phrased differently, if elected to they see a clear path forward to removal? Considering our recent past I would imagine any such action would result in threats of lawsuit, at the very least. If the BL changes move forward there is one to amend the BL to allow mediation be required before litigation.
To answer your question about the president's election; if you still retain your copy of the President's Report sent to all members in August, turn to the backside, final paragraph you will find the Board approved using member monies to not so subtly advocate the vote [reelection]for the president, the secretary [by full name] and the election of one other member by allowing the solicitous comments contained in the final paragraph. The other 7 nominees have thus far been sent to the Attorney for verification of legitimacy because their nominations were submitted on what was advanced/alleged as HSCA letterhead. When the attorney let them know they could not disqualify based on that he suggested that the more illegible signatures without an additional line where the signer would print the name could be used to disqualify because they could not verify the individuals in question were members if they did not know who wrote the name. That turned into quite a fiasco because some on the committee would not settle for the wife of one of the questionable signatures verifying her husband's, of 44 yrs, signature. They expected him to drop what he was doing and drive to the meeting right then and vouch for his signature. After all that, they still had someone --- not the secretary -- verifying signatures. At this juncture your guess is as good as anyone not on the Board as to who the candidates are other than the 3 already campaigning through the President's Report to members sent in August.
The upcoming Meeting on Thursday evening, Nov 10 has as part of the Agenda discussion on policy for Speed Bumps and a report from the Election Committee. I mention this because Members have a time to address items on the Agenda for 3 minutes before the business of the meeting gets started. That would be a place for members to take the time to comment on the agenda items that most interest them, like the Speed Bumps and Candidates.
Question Authority!
"Q might have done the right thing for the wrong reason, perhaps we need a good kick in our complacency to get us ready for what's ahead" -- Captain Picard, to Guinan (Q Who?)