Unofficial discussion of DMS Board Elections 2016

DMS General
#1

Hey Guys and Gals,

It is Board Elections Time again!

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/files/2012/11/presidential-election-cartoon-heller.jpg

So I missed the discussion about Board Elections at the meeting yesterday, but here is the write up from the Wiki:

Dallas Makerspace 2016 Board Election

  • Candidates must have their intent to run posted to the Dallas Makerspace Wiki by 7:00pm on March 31st, 2016, in order to be considered for Andrew LeCody’s proxy vote

  • On April 14th, in-person and proxy voting will occour at the Annual Membership Meeting

  • April 14th, 2016 is the Annual Membership Meting

  • Andrew LeCody will place a proxy vote as the popular vote from the online voting

  • Proposed as written by Andrew LeCody, seconded by Benjamin Groves

  • Motion passed with 4 in favor, 1 not present

1 Like
#2

Could someone that was at the meeting explain this clause to me? The way it is stated it seems like the online votes will be summed into a single vote.

Thanks

1 Like
#3

One follow up about the intentions of the current board concerning running again

Robert - Yes
Alex - Undecided
Kent - No
Andrew - No
Ben - No

2 Likes
Board of Directors Election and Logo Voting Results
#4

Where on the wiki are people announcing their intent to run? Will there be a “meet the candidates” day before the election?

1 Like
#5

Nick D

They really didn’t get that far. Apparently the prior method of voting online is not legal, so the Board is in something of a rush to resolve the issues and get the elections set-up. I am sure that we will hear the details in a week to ten days when Allen has had a chance to research what we can and can’t do from a legal perspective.

1 Like
#6

To answer this question, yes they intend to have a meet the candidates meeting.

#7

There will be an announcement with the details once we’ve got them hammered out, and it will include an explanation of our rationale.

4 Likes
#8

They intend to use the online system to collect proxy votes that Andrew will execute at the Annual Membership Meeting. If you use the online proxy system you can still appear in person and change your vote.

The real question is, will Andrew be voting just the top five results or pushing through all votes. That was a little unclear and we were all tired. Knowing Andrew and the BODs interest in fairness, I think they will clarify that point soon.

#9

For those of unfamiliar with these things, can somebody link relevant law/rules (i.e, not opinions)? I’m curious about what the issue is.

#10

All laws/rules are opinions, until a judge/jury tells YOU otherwise! :smile:

Allen is not on Talk (to the best of my knowledge), so if you want more information your best bet is to ask him directly. He is the one who made the board aware that our current approach is not legal, and said he will research the still outstanding questions in the next week or so.

#11

They just post a wiki page titled something like “statement of intent 2016 John Smith”

Just search “statement of intent” and you’ll get the right list

1 Like
#12

The laws themselves aren’t opinions, their interpretation is… I just didn’t want an internet lawyer spewing their “legal expertise” (interpretation) on my question.

#13

My understanding of the situation is the elections held in the past for the directors using the online voting system have not been in accordance with codes that dictate how directors should be elected. IANAL and TINLA, I’m just sharing what I took away from the meeting as a fellow member.

Sec. 22.161. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. (a) A member entitled to vote at an election of directors is entitled to vote, in person or by proxy, for as many persons as there are directors to be elected and for whose election the member has a right to vote.

That’s from Texas Business Organizations Code. There’s also codes that cover the meeting itself, notifications, etc.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/BO/htm/BO.22.htm

The election has to be held in person or by proxy. Online poll doesn’t satisfy either of those requirements for votes to be cast. The Andrew LeCody proxy vote is the online poll system used in years past for the elections. The difference this time around is the online voting system could be used to give your proxy vote to Andrew LeCody rather than using the online polling system directly to elect directors.

It allows the space to conduct elections in a similar way to what has been done in the past while also satisfying code of how we’re supposed to elect directors. I’m sure Andrew will have a full update on exactly how all of that will work when he’s ready. This is all subject to change depending on research that is in progress. It’s a complex subject that takes many hours and many people to figure out.

2 Likes
#14

The system Andrew described using isn’t what most people understand when using the term ‘proxy.’ What he described was that he would talley all of the online votes, and the top five resulting candidates would be use as the vote for everyone who submits their proxy through the online system.

In practice, this means that if we have 10 candidates, but you choose five that are on the bottom, your actual vote will be recorded for five candidates you never actually submitted.

A illustration of this potential problem is as follows. Say you have a total of 60 online votes. With 31 votes for candidates 1,2,3,4, & 5. And 29 votes for candidates 6,7,8,9, &10. Andrew would submit a proxy for 60 votes for candidates 1,2,3,4&5. With this example and our current voting numbers we would elect candidates 1-5, even if every other voting member showed up and voted for candidates 6-10. Which would mean a total of 69 members (assuming 100 voting members) voted for the other five candidates.

There was some debate about this, and the final approach to the proxy system was not decided as of the close of the board meeting.

#15

I wouldn’t make any assumptions. It was discussed after the meeting as well. I’m sure when Andrew is ready he will discuss the specifics of how it will work. Until then I wouldn’t stir up shit unnecessarily.

3 Likes
#16

I am neither making assumptions, nor ‘stirring the shit’. You stated that Andrew would be using the online system to allow members to give him their proxy. I simply clarified that what Andrew described in yesterday’s meeting was not what most people understand the term proxy to mean. I also concluded my post with essentially the same point you made; “There was some debate about this, and the final approach to the proxy system was not decided as of the close of the board meeting.”

#17

My opinion on the proxy vote is that Andrew should just cast the vote that is reflected by the vote given in the internet system. I feel that the idea of changing someone’s vote to the average is not a good system, it also changes the weight of a vote given online compared to a vote given in person.

Also, I feel that @lukeiamyourfather post is inappropriate as it doesn’t furthers the discussion and seems to be aimed at antagonizing members. I posted at the start I missed the discussion about the elections and I would point out that members where not given a way of knowing that voting was even going to be discussed at the meeting as there where no line items on the agenda that referenced it. So I’m sure there are a majority of members that have found themselves out of the loop on this topic. So thanks for sharing your views of the discussion and Please lets keep the accusations to a minimum. Most of us are in the dark on this item and it does have a vast effects on the space as a whole.

1 Like
#18

You really should’ve waited for Andrew to announce this, since we’re still researching the legality of this online proxy system. Let the board do them, and you do you.

2 Likes
#19

Brooks,

What our elected representatives do, and how they do it, are very much the business of every member. While we would all hope a certain decorum be practiced, it is never the less wholly inappropriate to say “mind your own business” where their actions are concerned. It IS all of our business, and should never be handled in a way where the membership is excluded from the discussion. This is one of the reasons why discussions among quorum require notice, minutes, etc.

3 Likes
#20

To the people getting miffed by this, I think there’s a misunderstanding of what proxy means and how it actually works. In order to do this election by the books people either need a proxy or they need to vote in person at a meeting. If Andrew LeCody decides to offer to handle proxy for members via the online polling system used previously it would be a courtesy on his behalf as a voting member just like any other voting member and is in no way required or mandated. It would also be under his terms which he’s already said he’ll discuss when he’s got it figured out.

Anyone else could do the same while we’re on the subject. The only reason the old online polling system was brought up is because it was already coded, people are familiar with it, it’s fairly straightforward for everyone because it’s what we’ve always done. I think it’s a good idea overall and I think Andrew will do the right thing by the members, please just give him a chance to do so. If you’re still unhappy later there’s plenty of time for stirring up shit.

2 Likes