[Eg-oversight-board] Office election codification

[Mike Rylander]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Grace Dunbar <gdunbar at esilibrary.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Back in the spring we all agreed that the modification of some aspects of
> our election processes were working well.  I'm going to detail them all here
> again for discussion purposes; however, I'd like to be able to codify any
> changes necessary for the ROG by next month's meeting and (hopefully) update
> the wiki with the new information.
>

[snip]

See my comments elsewhere on this thread.  TL;DR: I support Grace's
suggested language with a modification offered, and I think Dan has
some good input on other areas.

Now, on to the other questions!

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Outstanding questions:
>
> How do you all feel about a proposal that members newly elected to the EOB
> (e.g. in their first ever EOB term) may not be nominated to core roles of
> Chair, Vice-chair, Secretary, or Conservancy Representative?  They can,
> however, be nominated to serve as committee chairs.
>

I support this.

> Also, the Board has been called upon to appoint several new members when
> elected members have resigned.  Personally, I find the Board appointment
> process to be an issue as it has the potential to change the dynamic of our
> elected board.  Would there be any interest in proposing a change to the
> rules of governance to require special elections when a Board member leaves
> with more than 6 months left in their term?
>

I support this as well.  The board should give the community the
opportunity to replace their choice via secret ballot.

> And, lastly, is there any strong opinion on the size of the Board? A few
> years back there was an effort to reduce the Board size and we did make
> headway on that over the years by simply reducing the number of seats at
> each election.  How does everyone feel about the current size?  FWIW, I
> think we're at a good size now, especially considering how much work we have
> on our plates for the next few years.  But I'd like to hear your opinions.
>

I agree that the current size works fine, and is probably not too big
by much, but I will encourage future Boards to reconsider this
question.  There are benefits to a smaller Board; it is sometimes
easier to see the unbalanced plate load, if you will, when there are
fewer plates on the table. (He said, stretching the analogy nearly
beyond utility... :) )

Thanks, Grace!

--Mike

> Thanks!
> Grace
>
> --
> Grace Dunbar, Vice President
> Equinox - Open Your Library
> gdunbar at esilibrary.com
> 1-877-OPEN-ILS  |  www.esilibrary.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eg-oversight-board mailing list
> eg-oversight-board at list.evergreen-ils.org
> http://list.evergreen-ils.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/eg-oversight-board
>