Replying to Jose Izquierdo's questions:
(1) In no previous instances of the Nominating Committee's proposing one
of their own were the obvious consequences so predictably highly controversial
and divisive, nor was the likely adverse effect on tenuous AOS finances so
clear.
(2) There is indeed nothing in the by-laws that requires or suggests that
the Executive Vice President will become the next president; however, there
is a well established tradition that he or she will do so. I suggest that Jose
review the history of the past 20 years and see how many exceptions he can
cite. Moreover, the tradition is rooted in common sense. The post of executive
vice president provides a period of training and opportunity to view the
performance of the individual and to prepare the candidate. In that same vein, the
post of executive vice-president normally has been filled by someone who
immediately previously was serving as one of the two vice presidents or as
treasurer. To conclude that someone who has served in several senior positions
including two years as executive vice president suddenly is not deemed to be the
logical candidate for the next presidency is bizzare -- not impossible but very
unlikely. A nominating committee certainly has every right to reach such a
conclusion, as my remarks made clear, but any such decision must avoid every
possible taint of self-serving and conflicts of interest on anyone's part. Obviously,
the decision of the current nominating committee fails that test, otherwise
there would not be all the hullaballoo.
(3) I am not proposing any specific new slate. I stated explicitly that
the nominating committee may or may not have been well-advised in passing over
the incumbent executive vide president. No one questions their perogative to
do so, and they certainly are not supposed to be a rubber stamp. What I am
saying is that the subsitutions they made have given rise to all sorts of harmful
rumors of self-serving and conflicts of interest that are doing great harm to
the AOS, and that a nominating committee should be reconvened to pick a slate
that is not vulnerable to such allegations. By rejecting the currently
proposed slate, there would have to be such a reconvening. I would expect and hope
that some of the nominees of the first slate would reappear on the second, since
some of them are not objects of controversy. Do I make myself clear, Jose?
David Grove [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids
