[Watchdogs] Elections are coming
billc_lists at greenbuilder.com
Fri Jan 2 13:45:21 CST 2009
At 6:27 AM -0600 1/2/09, Paul Langston wrote:
Thanks for beating the drum on this, Paul. We need to be sure that
we get good directors elected to fill the seats that are up this year
so that the Old Guard is the minority.
> Issue One. Having the meters vote was a crooked deal cooked up by
>the past Boards to unfairly slant the elections. I say one
Sounds reasonable to me.
>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 representation.
>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 considered.
>Definitely, the candidate should live full time in his District.
I'd like to see the nomination requirement a bit higher. I think
that one reason we saw so many candidates in 2008 - too many, in my
opinion - is that the barrier to entry was so low. It was
overwhelming for the average member. PEC4u recommended 1/10 of 1%
of the memberships, which would be about 225 or so. I'd be fine
with somewhere between those - maybe 1/20 of 1% - to make it so that
candidates will have to stretch a little beyond their immediate
friends and family to get in.
It should not be a fixed number.
Alternatively, if we move to voting only for the director of your own
district instead of the current at-large voting, the number of
signatures could be based on the number of meters in that 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
Agreed, all but the last sentence. I wouldn't reject someone's
valuable input solely due to their age. Wouldn't that leave *you*
>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
Yes, there needs to be a way for members to find out more about the
candidates qualifications and positions if they wish - preferably on
the PEC website, not ours (though I'm willing to build a Candidates
Forum bulletin board for 2009 if PEC doesn't step up to the plate,
and if y'all feel it's useful).
Green Building Professionals Directory: <http://directory.greenbuilder.com>
Sustainable Building Calendar: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/calendar/>
Green Real Estate: <http://www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/>
Straw Bale Registry: <http://sbregistry.greenbuilder.com/>
More information about the Watchdogs