Let’s get an actual transparent policy in place to replace trustees

[John Meissner]

In the past decade, four trustee positions have opened up in an unscheduled fashion, and in only one case has there been a policy in place for a seamless and non-controversial transition to a new board member.

In the other three, we appear to be "winging it", either taking the next-highest vote getter from the most recent election or leaving it up to the other board members to pick someone they like if they don't like the next-highest vote getter.  I bring up yet again the space on the candidate form for the candidate to fill in the name of an individual he/she would like to be replaced by if they cannot fulfill their duties for whatever reason, and don't understand why we continue to have this on the candidate application form when it carries zero weight.  I see it as similarly useless as asking for the candidate's favorite dessert or go-to Monopoly game piece.

Perhaps the trustee position is too demanding as currently constituted.  Perhaps a weekly meeting with a once-a-month study session, although counter-intuitive as far as doubling the number of evening meetings, would reduce the workload and prep time per week, with fewer action items allowing for more focus and one-hour meetings instead of three-hour slogs.  Or maybe we should set one-term limits or encourage candidates to consider a full-body CT scan before running, like astronauts, or to allow questions from the audience about family health history at the LWV forum.

Because it seems like we are currently making decisions on governing based solely on expense and trying to avoid additional expense, which is the worst and most arbitrary reason possible to steal decision-making from the electors, which is where it belongs if we want to continue the facade of having a local democracy rather than an HOA board of Florida retirees.