D Tharp wrote:
However, our bylaws require a 2/3 majority of those voting in an
election to approve the passage of an amendment. With two amendments,
addressing basically the same subject, it is unlikely that either
would garner enough favorable votes to pass. If both fail we would
remain as we are today, over represented for State Coordinators and
underrepresented for County Coordinators. For that reason alone I
believe we should sponsor or co-sponsor only one proposal.
J Fisher writes:
Each proposed amendment stands on its own merits. They are independent. Voters would be
free to vote for (or against) either OR both amendments. There needs to be a statement
about what happens if BOTH amendments get a 2/3 approval.
D Tharp wrote:
It does away only with the
positions of State Coordinator representative. The proposal still
retains the positions of NC, RAL, SP and CC representation that are
now in place.
J Fisher writes:
Ellen's and my amendment does away with both SC and CC representation. The SP seat
would be the only one that is a position-specific seat.
D Tharp wrote:
The differences I spoke of earlier are these. Ellen's proposal
eliminates all representation for the position of State Coordinators
which I believe is unfair to them. Don's amendment retains a State
Coordinator to represent them on the board in proportion to their numbers.
J Fisher writes:
The SCs do not need a special representative. At least 95% of the SCs are also CCs and/or
SPs. Their voices will be heard.
D Tharp wrote:
Ellen's proposal gives the CCs of one region just one extra vote
for
representation on the Advisory board. Don's amendment retains the
regional representation we now have and gives the CCs of one region
three extra votes for representation on the Advisory board.
J Fisher writes:
D Tharp's amendment reduces the regional representation from 3 (one SC and two CCs) to
two regional representatives. Ellen's and my amendment keeps the regional
representation at three. While Mr. Tharp's amendment allows you to vote for 3 at-large
seats, there is no guarantee that any of those elected will be from this region and/or
understand the issues that affect us. In fact, one state with a very large
number of counties could easily sweep an election under Mr. Tharp's proposal.
Your votes for the at-large reps would be diluted, as you would be one out of 2200,
whereas on the additional regional rep, you are one out of 550 - and you are guaranteed
that the one additional rep would be from this region.
<snip>
For that reason, I vote for Ellen's amendment and against Mr. Tharp's amendment.