[Watchdogs] Elections are coming
marasri at texasdata.net
Fri Jan 2 10:40:19 CST 2009
I agree about one member one vote but this is how rural areas get
shafted by urban areas. They have different concerns than the
suburbs. Are you advocating that the districts should be voted in by
only their members or is this still a voting at large system. If it
is voting at large for every director , coupled with the
proportionate districts. The rural voter will be shafted even in
their own district.
On Jan 2, 2009, at 6:27 AM, Paul Langston wrote:
> I have this Governance & Election Issues in 2009 brochure handed
> out at the Director's meeting over at Kyle. It mentions a proposed
> Election Process that will start in February-09. As we look
> backwards over the wreck and ruin of our PEC by the leaders who
> had pledged to work for us-and didn't, let's not forget to look to
> the future and better days.
> I am fairly sure that Patrick Cox made this up and it contains most
> all of the important changes that we members need for honest and
> fair elections.
> I will just mention them and I will say, plainly what I would like
> to happen in this election of 2009.
> Issue One. Having the meters vote was a crooked deal cooked up by
> the past Boards to unfairly slant the elections. I say one member-
> one vote.
> Issue Two. Balancing Districts. Definitely, we need to divide out
> the voters in more or less even Districts. District one with only
> 7% of the members should not have the representation of Dist. 3
> with 29% of the members. The faster growing Districts will need
> to be redrawn each two years in an attempt to give equal
> Given the amount of hard work to rebuild this COOP, maybe we should
> think of having nine or ten Districts. More Directors should have
> a better shot at improvements. As the numbers stand today, to save
> a lot of time and work, in that this election is coming soon, just
> divide Districts 3 and 7 in twain for a quick fix. That would be
> nine Districts of about from 7% to 14%. UH, let's consider
> number of Members not number of meters.
> Other Issues. Nomination by 25 members is reasonable. Requiring
> more names will not make much difference. The Serious Intent
> factor will be indicated by the campaigning of the candidates. I
> do think that a $2,000 limit on campaign expenses should be
> Definitely, the candidate should live full time in his District.
> Other Issues. There should be only two Advisory Directors. They
> are needed as potential substitutes. They can help in sub
> committees. The rest of the existing , sitting Advisory Directors
> should be sent home. Advisory Directors should be chosen by the
> number of votes that they get in their District, in short the
> second Candidate who just barely lost out to the winner. They
> should serve as Directors at large.
> Term Limits: Definitely. This abomination of having Directors
> sitting for 30-40 years is ridiculous. Directors should sit no
> more than 10 years. Directors should resign when they get to 70
> years of age.
> One important detail that I stumbled across in the 2008 election
> was that I met some candidates who had so much experience and so
> much intimate knowledge about our business that they never were
> able to list it all. There was never enough space nor time allowed
> for them to list all of their qualifications and experience. We
> need to allow them, at least once to write out every bit of it for
> Comments welcomed.....Paul Langston 830-598-1322
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> NEW INSTRUCTIONS: To remove yourself from this list, please send an
> email to watchdogs-request at pec4u.org with UNSUBSCRIBE in the
> SUBJECT line. Or go to http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo/watchdogs
> and follow the instructions at the bottom of the page.
More information about the Watchdogs