From lojbab@lojban.org Sun Aug 23 04:50:12 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:50:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.240.47]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MfBaM-0000tG-3w for llg-members@lojban.org; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:50:12 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20090823115005.XWQI11342.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:50:05 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id Xnq31c00122sj6m02nq3fU; Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:50:03 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=-8r1cnYGaLMA:10 a=Foig7wFDAAAA:8 a=C1y5wzouvthT1nH5wtcA:9 a=nubSh4voN1uB-e83UesA:7 a=7j7fihHVqX0EZ9BlfrTfjOMp1VAA:4 a=HTkLZB8eETUA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4A912D5F.7090405@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:51:59 -0400 From: Bob LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2009: Election of the Board References: <20090628201339.GG23324@nvg.org> <20090808123929.GQ2912@nvg.org> <20090814143122.GZ2912@nvg.org> <20090814153309.GA2912@nvg.org> <53391.75.75.38.246.1250284405.squirrel@www.patriot.net> <20090822115557.GD5073@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: <20090822115557.GD5073@nvg.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 736 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:13:25PM -0400, dlb@patriot.net wrote: > >>>On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 11:08:20AM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: >>> >>>>Refresh my memory, please. Does everyone need to be re-nominated, or >>>>would inaction leave the same board in place? >>> >>>If you want to have the current slate of directors re-elected, you can >>>nominate them. There is no default course of action here. >> >>I have seen the following messages as well; however, I don't want to let >>one thing slip by under the rubric of "default". >> >>I therefore ask unanimous consent to a heartfelt expression of thanks to >>the current board of directors, and to their re-election by acclamation. > > > MOVED: > * To re-elect the current Board of Directors: > * Robin Lee Powell > * Robert LeChevalier > * Matt Arnold > * Arnt Richard Johansen > > * To give a heartfelt expression of thanks to the current Board of Directors. > > PASSED, as amended. Point of order. The Bylaws specify an agenda order, one that was taken sufficiently seriously that in prior years, we went to great lengths to amend it to put election of new members ahead of the Board election. We should follow that agenda. The Board election cannot take place (or at least in the informality of the current on-line meetings, cannot be concluded), until after the prior agenda items have taken place. It hasn't even clearly been decided whether the one new proposed member has been officially accepted. I note specifically that NOT ONE OFFICER has made a report to the membership (and Robin begged off doing so temporarily due to lack of time). So, especially in light of the "amendment" to give thanks to the Board, it kinda would be nice if that Board reported to the membership just what it is that the membership should be thankful for. I happen to think that the officers' reports to the members is perhaps the most important part of the meeting. The officers' reports are, among other things, the most logical basis for any new business as well as board elections. But in any case, we should not be at this point of the agenda, without those reports. If there is any dispute on this, I ask the opinion of the parliamentarian. Unfortunately, I am the only non-officer on the Board, so I can't remedy this (though Robin thinks that "Virginia representative" is a kind of officership, it is not in the bylaws as such, and I am not sure what I would report on, except that I still live in Virginia). lojbab