[Eg-oversight-board] Office election codification

[Dan Scott]

Thanks for raising this, Grace. Just to respond to one small piece:

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Grace Dunbar <gdunbar at esilibrary.com>
wrote:

> Specific parts to replace/modify/add:
> 2.4 d. [current wording] Each year, the Board shall *promulgate* procedures
> for nominating and electing new Board members. Nominations may be made by
> any individual who has contributed to Evergreen or who is employed by an
> institution that runs Evergreen.
> 2.4 d. [proposed wording] Each year, the Board shall *review* procedures
> for nominating and electing new Board members. *If no changes to the
> procedures are to be made, the Board shall follow the procedure established
> the previous calendar year.* Nominations may be made by any individual
> who has contributed to Evergreen or who is employed by an institution that
> runs Evergreen.
>

The change from "promulgate" to "review" is significant; the intent of
"promulgate" is to ensure that the procedures are widely known, whereas
"review" makes it very inward-facing and doesn't charge the Oversight Board
with promoting the elections to try and ensure a broad slate of candidates.
Maybe drop the high-falutin' "promulgate" for "promote widely" or
"publicize widely"?

It also seems strange to bake an annual review of this one process into the
rules of governance, as well as the additional sentence about "...follow
the procedure established...". Perhaps the nomination and election process
that is already documented in 2.4(d) and 2.4(e) could be enhanced slightly,
at least to the extent of specifying "Approval Style". 2.4(e) already
mentions electronic voting; I don't think it's desirable to mention any
specific supplier here.

Looking at it just a bit more, 2.4(d) and 2.4(e) should probably be
separated out from "2.4 Term" to a new "2.5 Elections"; this would provide
the opportunity to also document the "Members of the community must
register to vote via an online survey. Submissions shall be vetted by the
Board for eligibility." steps. I think this would strengthen the Rule of
Governance, without delving too far into specifics of the tools and
processes, and the elections piece would continue to be subject to review
on an as-needed basis as any other part of the Rules of Governance are.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.evergreen-ils.org/pipermail/eg-oversight-board/attachments/20161107/25fd1c4b/attachment.html>