Board Succession Procedure

[Forum Administrator]

It has been proposed that the Board election procedures be modified with regard to succession to the Board in the event that a Board member vacates a seat prior to the annual election each May. The proposal is that an alternate pool be created through the voting process to ensure that the successor to a vacant spot will have been "next in line" so to speak, as per majority vote.

This is how it would work: Say that in the next election, there will be 3 spots open on the Board, i.e., 3 Board members are leaving or 3 Board members' terms are up and they are eligible for reelection to serve another term.

On the voting ballot, DIPOA members would be allowed to vote for 5 people, not just 3. This will create a pool of 5 people who received the most votes from the membership at large. Then, if a Board member steps down mid-term, the first alternate immediately moves into that vacated spot. If another Board member steps down mid-term, there is still one more alternate who was elected who can step in.

This would eliminate vacancies on the Board mid-term and would more closely represent a majority vote of the membership, more so than other succession/replacement methods which have been used in the past.

Alternates would not start a new 3-year term. They would merely serve out the term of the Board member whose seat was vacated. They could, of course, run for reelection to stay in that seat during the next election cycle.

Discuss your pros and cons here.

[ambergreen]

I like this proposal. Currently, if there is a vacancy mid-term, the Board members vote among themselves on who the replacement should be.

DIPOA members (who are not Board members) currently have only two "powers" given to them by the DIPOA Constitution. In other words, just two things they can vote on - Board members (in the once-a-year elections each May) and on disbursement/handling of DIPOA property.

When Board members are allowed to appoint a new Board member to fill a vacated seat mid-term - without consulting the membership at large - this sort of takes away one of the only two voting rights the members at large have.

Granted, it's only a mid-term replacement, but if the seat was vacated early on in the term of the person vacating the spot, the newly appointed person could be a Board member for almost 3 years. That's nearly 3 years of representation by someone who was not elected by a majority vote of the membership. Allowing members to elect an alternate pool each election cycle seems like the most fair method.

This would require a change to the DIPOA Constitution.

[JBJ]

I like this idea ( I think because it's my idea ) and would hope to put it in place. But it won't be done this year--there's really not a consensus of the board ( that I can detect) and we have too many other ballot issues to deal with. And to be fair to those who don't support it, the way the constitution currently provides for replacements is not flawed--this is just maybe an improvement.
The flaw--IMHO-- would be to consider the next in line the "heir apparent" without having provided the additional vote to the members. That is we should only go as "deep into the stack" as the number of votes allowed.

[ambergreen]

Having an alternate pool is a TERRIFIC idea. You should champion your own proposal, not only because it is yours but because it is a very good proposal. It should be put to the vote for all members. Allowing all members to vote for two more candidates than there are spots available is the most fair and equitable method for handling mid-term replacements. This process would provide results which reflect the majority votes of the membership, not just a majority vote of the Board itself to appoint a replacement. This is too important. It should not be postponed until next year. How we elect Board members is one of the most important things - and frankly, one of the ONLY things - members have the power to do.

[whistlingdixie]

Only problem I see with this is getting 5 people to re-up or run!