From nancgulley at gmail.com  Tue Sep 27 15:37:07 2016
From: nancgulley at gmail.com (Nancy Gulley)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:37:07 -0400
Subject: [Board] Vote on nominated people for Board and Membership committee
Message-ID: <CAEYcus8=Y7+F-r=A-gEXdigaCb+FSDtO+pxmtOr=12TCCoS11g@mail.gmail.com>

It has been called to my attention by Dave Wajda that we did not vote on
the names presented by the nominating committee for the Board or Membership
committee and that there is a feeling by some that we have put too many
people up for nomination and not specifically selected 4 for the Board and
2 for Membership.  To the point of the number...there is nothing in the
Constitution that states we only specify the ones we feel should be on the
Board or Membership.  So my feeling and that of others is we have offered
up a great slate of potential Board and Membership potentials.

Please let me know if you have an concerns and please state your vote for
the nominated people.

Carole, I will talk to you tomorrow.

Again, I believe we did a great job in Encouraging new participants.

Nanc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://portsmouthyc.org/pipermail/board_portsmouthyc.org/attachments/20160927/801057ec/attachment.htm>

From dswajda at comcast.net  Tue Sep 27 15:52:52 2016
From: dswajda at comcast.net (David S Wajda)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 17:52:52 -0400
Subject: [Board] Vote on nominated people for Board and Membership
 committee
In-Reply-To: <CAEYcus8=Y7+F-r=A-gEXdigaCb+FSDtO+pxmtOr=12TCCoS11g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEYcus8=Y7+F-r=A-gEXdigaCb+FSDtO+pxmtOr=12TCCoS11g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D9B8FEDE-F25F-44D6-9E8F-E9808BC3AF94@comcast.net>

Just a brief response regarding Article I section 12 - ....... Recommend list of nominees for 'selection consideration' - I believe we as a board choose 4 to fill vacancies and 2 on membership. I agree all the nominees are great and willing to serve.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Nancy Gulley <nancgulley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It has been called to my attention by Dave Wajda that we did not vote on the names presented by the nominating committee for the Board or Membership committee and that there is a feeling by some that we have put too many people up for nomination and not specifically selected 4 for the Board and 2 for Membership.  To the point of the number...there is nothing in the Constitution that states we only specify the ones we feel should be on the Board or Membership.  So my feeling and that of others is we have offered up a great slate of potential Board and Membership potentials.
> 
> Please let me know if you have an concerns and please state your vote for the nominated people.
> 
> Carole, I will talk to you tomorrow.
> 
> Again, I believe we did a great job in Encouraging new participants.
> 
> Nanc



From dan at dangingras.net  Tue Sep 27 18:20:22 2016
From: dan at dangingras.net (Dan Gingras)
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:20:22 -0400
Subject: [Board] Vote on nominated people for Board and Membership
 committee
In-Reply-To: <D9B8FEDE-F25F-44D6-9E8F-E9808BC3AF94@comcast.net>
References: <CAEYcus8=Y7+F-r=A-gEXdigaCb+FSDtO+pxmtOr=12TCCoS11g@mail.gmail.com>
	<D9B8FEDE-F25F-44D6-9E8F-E9808BC3AF94@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <00ac01d2191e$1b50a930$51f1fb90$@dangingras.net>

David,

    It's interesting that at the last board meeting there was some allusion
to certain people (I assumed it meant me) creating a (I forget the word
used) but essentially a "dynasty" by hand picking the board members.   It
made sense, and I overheard Art (whom I assured would be selected) telling
someone that if we didn't pick him he'd run from the floor.   It was at that
point that I felt that "hand picking" the board was a bad idea, and I read
the constitution.    I also spoke to Paul G and Paul R  and suggested that
the most democratic way to approach this was to vet  any candidate who
wanted to run.   We rejected a couple who we felt were not sufficiently
qualified, and brought the rest to the board.     Nothing in what you quoted
sets a limit as to the number of "selection consideration".   Historically
the candidates were "hand picked" and I believe that was anti-democratic and
created a situation where there were "dynasties" created.      I say let the
membership pick whomever they feel most qualified.    Perhaps if you feel
that the nominating committee should hand pick the next board members, we
should amend the constitution, but I would oppose it on the basis of it
being anti-democratic.

Dan



-----Original Message-----
From: Board [mailto:board-bounces at portsmouthyc.org] On Behalf Of David S
Wajda
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:53 PM
To: Board of Directors <board at portsmouthyc.org>
Subject: Re: [Board] Vote on nominated people for Board and Membership
committee

Just a brief response regarding Article I section 12 - ....... Recommend
list of nominees for 'selection consideration' - I believe we as a board
choose 4 to fill vacancies and 2 on membership. I agree all the nominees are
great and willing to serve.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 27, 2016, at 5:37 PM, Nancy Gulley <nancgulley at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It has been called to my attention by Dave Wajda that we did not vote on
the names presented by the nominating committee for the Board or Membership
committee and that there is a feeling by some that we have put too many
people up for nomination and not specifically selected 4 for the Board and 2
for Membership.  To the point of the number...there is nothing in the
Constitution that states we only specify the ones we feel should be on the
Board or Membership.  So my feeling and that of others is we have offered up
a great slate of potential Board and Membership potentials.
>
> Please let me know if you have an concerns and please state your vote for
the nominated people.
>
> Carole, I will talk to you tomorrow.
>
> Again, I believe we did a great job in Encouraging new participants.
>
> Nanc