OT: requesting input on SFBC board election issue

[Shirley Johnson]

Thank you for electing me to the SF Bike Coalition board of directors. I intend to bring the voice of members to the board. To that end, I request your input on an issue with the recent board election.

The bylaws require candidates to receive approval by a majority of the returned ballots. The 4^th through 7^th place candidates (Jennifer Fox, Mary Kay Chin, and Lisa Fisher) did not win a majority.

To fill the three vacancies, the board could:

1.  Hold a special election as a run-off
2.  Appoint the 5^th through 7^th place candidates

Considerations:

• The election was very close with only 185 votes separating the 1^st place from the 14^th place candidates. (There were 1443 valid ballots.)
• The bylaws allow the board to fill at most three vacancies per calendar year by appointment. (The board announced the appointment of Vanessa Christi on January 12, but made the appointment in closed session on December 15, so the board can still make three appointments in 2016.)

How do you think the vacancies should be filled?

You can provide input by replying here and/or attending the SFBC board meeting at 6:30pm, Tuesday, January 27 at 1720 Market St at Valencia.

Thank you!

Shirley

[djconnel]

Those pesky bylaws, always getting the the way of fun :).

Instant-runoff ranked-choice (as I am told used to be used) would eliminate the problem, likely. In particular if everyone voted for 7 candidates from 14 available then it would be impossible for any of the top 7 to not receive half the vote. But the present voting system encouraged voters to not vote for 7 since this would result in vote dilution. With a ranked-choice system there is no dilution.

The ranked-choice system would work as follows:
1. hold a ranked choice election for the top vote-getter.
2. eliminate him or her from the pool.
3. repeat until all positions are filled.

As usual each ranked-choice "election" is held as follows:
1. rank all candidates by votes received, using only first-choice votes.
2. eliminate candidate receiving the least votes.
3. any ballot voting for that candidate with remaining votes on the ballot gets those remaining votes promoted, otherwise the ballot is discarded.

Then there would be no reason for voters to not fill all seven ballot positions, or for that matter vote for all candidates, which would make the result much more robust.

[Matthew Blain]

appoint. anything else is a massive waste of everyone's time and psychic energy.

be thankful that is such an easy solution here.

...

[Nathan Dushman]

Absolutely agree on appointing, especially since it sounds like those people weren't many votes short of enough to qualify.

[Peter Chang]

Le vendredi 22 janvier 2016 09:38:54 UTC-8, Matthew Blain a écrit :

appoint. anything else is a massive waste of everyone's time and psychic energy.

+1

[John Murphy]

Agreed. This needs to end, now. It's starting to make people tire of SFBC - no matter who caused it.

 

J

--

-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

[Cordelia Link]

+1 for appointing

[Maciek Wojciechowski]

Ehh, every time I hear about sfbc it's board/election talk. Makes you wonder if they're doing bikes there at all...

[Peter Chang]

Le vendredi 22 janvier 2016 12:57:07 UTC-8, Maciek Wojciechowski a écrit :

Ehh, every time I hear about sfbc it's board/election talk. Makes you wonder if they're doing bikes there at all...

i think that's what non-profits are all about, drama (not the hokey pokey).

\p 

[Bruce Garretson]

+ 1 for appointing

[Drk]

+1 to ranked choice in the future and appoint this year.

[Matthew Blain]

To repeat myself before this evening's meeting: "be thankful that is such an easy solution here".

How does any other solution (leave vacant, hold new election, ???) help bicycle advocacy? 

Does it help recruiting a new Executive Director?
Does it help the strategic plan?
Does it help with your campaign promise of increasing member-led SFBC-supported advocacy projects?

Does it impede any of the above?

[Christine Windsor]

Wasn't the meeting on tuesday? Or did your email just get caught in the tubes for a couple of days?

[John Murphy]

The meeting was Tuesday. I got a recap from a certain board member that was "interesting"

 

J

[Matthew Blain]

oops. no, a facebook post was stuck which said "tonight". with a date of a few days ago.

[Shirley Johnson]

Please forgive my delayed response. I thank all of you for providing input! It is very important to me to bring the voice of members to the board, so I’m always open to hearing your views.

To reiterate the issue:
The bylaws require candidates to receive approval by a majority of the returned ballots to be elected to the board. The 5^th through 7^th place candidates in the recent board election did not win a majority, creating three vacancies on the board. According to the bylaws, vacancies can be filled either by the board though appointment or by the members through special election.

The board’s decision:
At the January 26 SFBC board meeting, the board approved a resolution to seat the 5^th through 7^th place candidates and in the event of a legal challenge to then appoint these same candidates. The vote was 10 for and one against (the 5^th through 7^th place candidates were not allowed to vote). I was the sole vote against this resolution.

My position:
Based on your input and that of other members, I took the position at the board meeting that the 5^th through 7^th place candidates should be appointed, as allowed per the bylaws. While a special election is an option that I would also support in principle, I was concerned about the staff time required to administer an election and the delay in filling all board seats. Furthermore, the 5^th through 7^th place candidates were voted on by the members, reflecting members’ support of these candidates.

Improvement in transparency:
In the interest of improving transparency, I encouraged the board secretary to include a record of director votes as well as a summary of supporting and dissenting opinions in the meeting minutes, which are posted here: http://www.sfbike.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016.02-January-Minutes.pdf

I’m pleased with this development for greater transparency, and I will continue to work for further improvements in open communication.

Join my newsletter:
I have started a newsletter for those interested in keeping up to date on what the SFBC board is working on and to learn how you can provide input to board decisions. You are invited to join my newsletter here: http://goo.gl/forms/AHWN8NmD6n

Thanks again for being interested in SFBC governance, so fundamental to the organization’s success.

Shirley

P.S. For reference, here are the relevant sections of the SFBC bylaws:

Article IV, Section 11.A.v
For purposes of the annual election of Directors conducted by electronic ballot, approval by ballot shall be valid if a majority of the returned ballots indicate approval of a nominated Director.

Article V, Section 6
Vacancies may be filled by the remaining directors (unless the vacancy was created by removal of a director by the members) or by the members, for the unexpired portion of the term, provided that the Board may not fill more than three such vacancies in any calendar year. In the event that there shall be more than three vacancies created during a year, the remaining directors shall decide whether to leave the position vacant until the next annual election, or whether to call a special election to fill the vacancies.