Re: Election of AIS Directors

["Robert Pries " <robertpries@embarqmail.com>]

As I understand it The problem with the bylaws was that no nominations were solicited from the floor in open session. If we wish to remedy that we could ask the people who were present as recorded by our secretary if they would have nominated anyone else. If not, I believe the ballot should stand as it was conducted. Certainly surveying the whole membership who were not in attendance seems like solving the problem with an ax as opposed to a scalpel. 

I would state publically that I do not believe in allowing some paid employees the right to be on the board while excluding others because they are paid can not seems totally unethical, and I did not and would not, vote for John on those grounds.

I understand that when you have served on the board for two terms and seek reelection after staying out a year, one expects to be reelected. I suffered the same circumstance a couple of years ago and was very hurt that I did not get re-elected that year. I had only served two terms. I believe John has served many more. I felt I had served the board faithfully and probably more diligently in all the jobs I was doing. But my pride was busted. I admit I no longer put in the 50 hour weeks on AIS projects since I felt that type of dedication is not respected. I am sure John has similar feelings.

But I never noticed any empathy for me, from John and I do not think we should be wasting time and money on this because of the perceived slight. As I said I think it was wrong for him to be nominated holding a paid registrar position, even if it is legal.

----- Original Message -----
From: "andi rivarola" <andinsky@gmail.com>
To: aisdiscuss@aisboard.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:00:12 PM
Subject: Re: [AISdiscuss] Election of AIS Directors

I do not agree with sending a ballot to the membership, and waste thousands
of dollars we do not have. The Board could perhaps offer an apology for the
procedural error if needed since it was not done intentionally. Don't see
why we have to re-do the entire thing. I believe the membership will
understand a reasonable explanation without having to add fuel to the fire.
Wasting resources is more bothersome than the mistake itself.


Andi Rivarola


On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, John Jones <jijones@usjoneses.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately at the AIS Spring 2013 Board meeting the proper process for
> the election of officers, as prescribed in the BYLAWS OF THE AMERICAN IRIS
> SOCIETY, was not followed.
>
> The AIS Bylaws specify that the Nominating Committee present, in open
> session, a list of at least 8 candidates to the Board and that the Board
> then accept nominations from the floor from any AIS member. The Board is to
> then go into executive session and choose 4 candidates as nominees to be
> elected as directors at the following Fall Board meeting.
>
> The list of candidates was not presented in open session, but rather in
> executive session, and no nominations from the floor were allowed in the
> open session. Nominations by the members of the Board of Directors were
> also accepted in the executive session.
>
> I would like the Board to consider placing all 11 candidates that they
> evaluated in executive session on a ballot to be mailed to the AIS
> membership so the membership can select the 4 directors. This process being
> similar to the process prescribed in the AIS Bylaws Article V, Section 4
> (d) specifically:
>
> "Any additional nomination shall thereafter be by petition signed by forty
> members, with not more than fifteen from any one AIS Region, and such
> petition shall be submitted to and received by the AIS Secretary on or
> before August 15 of the same year.  A ballot including the names of the
> original nominees and any additional nominee or nominees shall be mailed to
> all AIS members on or before September 15 of each year, and returned
> ballots received by the AIS Secretary or the Election Committee, if one is
> appointed, on or before October 15 of the same year."
>
> The authority to do this resides with the Board Of Directors as prescribed
> in Article V, Section 1:
>
> "The AIS Board of Directors shall have complete and comprehensive power
> and authority to conduct the affairs of the AIS, the intent of these bylaws
> being to confer upon the AIS Board full discretion and power in any and all
> situations that may arise."
>
> I do not believe that the error was intentional. Nonetheless, I believe
> the Board should take the action outlined above to reassure the membership.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> John
> __________________
> John and Joanne Jones
> Registrar-Recorders, American Iris Society
> aisregistrar@irises.org
>
> John Jones, Chairman, Electronic Services Committee
> aiselectronicsvcs@irises.org
>
> 35572 Linda Drive
> Fremont, CA 94536
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
> <aissecretary@irises.org>
> The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
> http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/
>



-- 
Andi Rivarola

VP, Spuria Iris Society
Board Member, The American Iris Society

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to the AIS Secretary
<aissecretary@irises.org>
The archives for AISDiscuss are at:
http://www.aisboard.org/lists/aisdiscuss/