Based on the logic that creating an opportunity for continuity between each board term would benefit SFC, I think the clause that allows current board members to be nominated even if they are no longer students makes sense. I say "opportunity for continuity" because any nominee (whether they are a current board member or not) must be elected. It is up to the SFC community to decide how heavily they will weigh past experience against the wide array of important factors to consider when casting a vote.
If we agree that having at least the opportunity to benefit from experience and continuity is a good thing, but want to ensure that the SFC Board is *by and large* representative of a student constituency, then I would propose an amendment along the following lines: Current SFC Board members whose status as a student changes during, or after, the current term are eligible for nomination in the first and second SFC Board Elections following their last nomination as a student. I haven't done a stellar job with the lingo here but I am trying to convey a scenario that limits the number of times a past board member who is no longer student can be nominated. Best, Christina On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Nelson Pavlosky <[email protected]>wrote: > I think that the intention behind allowing board members to stand > again was so that if a board member was e.g. taking a year off from > school we could still benefit from their experience (if they got > elected, meaning that the chapters agree that we need their > experience). I think there was also a concern that if e.g. we suffer > massive chapter failure and a shortage of candidates that a board > member or two could stay on to ensure that the organization continues. > > However, I think there is a growing consensus that SFC should be run > by current students, so it may be reasonable to amend the Bylaws to > ensure that we always represent our constituency, students. It may > also be good to amend this part of the Bylaws so that incumbents don't > get special treatment, as Budnick points out. > > Peace, > ~Nelson~ > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Kevin Driscoll <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Great question, Chris. More nominees the better! > > > > To echo Karen, I'll quote the Bylaws: > > http://wiki.freeculture.org/Bylaws#Section_1.1._Board_Elections > > > > "Article V: Officers and Elections > > Section 1. Board of Directors > > Section 1.1. Board Elections > > Section 1.1.1. Annual Elections > > > > Elections shall be called once a year in the spring for all seats on the > board. > > > > Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members > > of the board of directors can nominate themselves or other eligible > > individuals for board positions. > > > > Members of any chapter (as defined by the chapter) and current members > > of the board of directors shall be eligible to stand for election to > > the board." > > > > > > Kevin > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:27 PM, Karen Rustad <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> If I recall correctly, we let chapters define members. So if you're > still > >> active in your chapter or another chapter, the chapter could easily > still > >> consider you a member. But yes, the bylaws do reward experience to some > >> degree (though incumbents still have to actually get re-elected!). > >> > >> -- Karen > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Christopher Budnick > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 2:15 AM, FreeCulture.org - Students for Free > >>> Culture > >>> <[email protected]<webleader%[email protected]>> > wrote: > >>> > ### Who is eligible? > >>> > > >>> > In order to be a candidate for the SFC Board, nominees must either be > a > >>> > current member of a SFC chapter or currently serving on the Board, > per > >>> > our [Bylaws.][3] > >>> > >>> Thanks Christina! > >>> > >>> Am I correct in understanding that, for example, since I just > >>> graduated I'm no longer an SFC member, but someone who is on the Board > >>> is, even if the circumstances are the same? > >>> > >>> My plate is too full as it is, but, yikes, we're (you're?) going to > >>> encourage a certain sort of leadership and status quo with that sort > >>> of rule. I remember writing the Bylaws, but was that ever intended? > >>> > >>> see ya > >>> christopher > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Discuss mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Discuss mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
