SLSA Emergency Elections -reasonings for

The place for your questions and suggestions.
Post Reply
User avatar
Rani Decosta
SLSA Hall of Fame
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: England
Contact:

SLSA Emergency Elections -reasonings for

Post by Rani Decosta »

Hi All
I am writing this post in response to the report published in the surfwatch blog today 'SLSA Elections - What's going on' and also in response to Craig's post about these emergency elections.
I have always tried to be clear, open and honest and because of that expect it from others. That clarity may have not been as apparent in very recent days within SLSA for many of you, hence my reply here.
Milo contact myself & Poid amongst several other advisors for our comments, advice and help as to how to proceed in the unusual situation the board find themselves of being three directors down. I have cut and paste my email in its entirety below so you can see exactly what I said. My reply was based on a consultation between myself and Poid.


from my email to milo :-

I have discussed this at length with Poid and we both
agree that the only credible option open to us is to
hold a special emergency election. The bylaws dont
cover such a situation but because we have 3 directors
seats vacant we think its best solution.
I think you need to make a special announcement in the
forum & as notice as a matter of urgency, advising
membership that Carenahh, Sierra & Ritch no longer
directors and in view of this need to hold emergency
elections etc.
For the nomination and voting process I think it's a
must that votes be sent not just to existing directors
but to say 2 or 3 advisors (eg myself, poid, sally).
Just to be transparent and open.
Plus talking of transparency it would be good idea to
be open about the accounts, more so now that there are
only 2 directors at moment.

Also bear in mind the ruling that no more than 2
directors can be on board from same team.

Poid has kindly offered her help with
organising/obtaining sponsorships for Neart in
addition to other stuff she already doing.

If you can announce the resignations and up coming
elections tonight with a view to asking for members to
nominate by say Monday, could hold elections by next
Saturday 17th May. As I know you're very aware this
really needs to get sorted as matter of urgency.

I think its good to still plan for Neart but maybe
consider delaying by week and have on following
Sunday? Otherwise you have 3 new directors thrown in
at deep end. That is unless you feel able to handle
the comp on scheduled date with the resources you have
in place.

Thats about it I think! Lot of stuff but at this
stage its best to be very open with membership. Let
me know if you have any more questions.


As regards the confusion, well, I think that the problem was that Milo wanted to get elections underway ASAP so sent out a notice as quickly as he could. Unfortunately in doing so he cause some confusion. His intentions I know were to be open and fair, which is precisely why he & Rad didnt want to appoint interim directors themselves. They felt that for just 2 directors to appoint 3 brand new directors to the board would cause some concern and maybe raise questions of potentially being biased. Hence they wanted to look at calling emergency elections and raised this as a possibility with some of the advisers.

With regards to the tenure of the newly appointed directors, well, right now we need stability. So, in my opinion I think need to appoint these directors for a full term. The rules dont cover this situation I think they were written assuming that one director had resigned/left and the rule covers that fine. This is a very unusual situation. This will mean that after these elections the next set of elections will be for Rad & Milo when their 6 month term is up (not sure when that is?).

I, like so many people want the SLSA to continue - get it's strength back and go on to support the surfing community as it has done. It is important that we all pull together & back-up the existing directors and welcome the new ones.
What we need right now is stability and a chance for directors to get stuck in and get on with the job. Having fully fledged directors will enable this to happen and I hope ensure a solid foundation for SLSA.
Sorry if I have rambled!! lol
So, in my humble opinion the only way forward right now is to follow the process as per Milo's notice to ensure the continued success & future of the SLSA.

[/quote][quote][/quote]

User avatar
Rani Decosta
SLSA Hall of Fame
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:46 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Post by Rani Decosta »

i clicked submit before I had chance to check my grammar and also before I had chance to say sorry if I rambled!!
:)

User avatar
Poid Mahovlich
SLSA Hall of Fame
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 12:37 am
SL Name: Poid Mahovlich
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Poid Mahovlich »

Being transparent is the only way to go with this I feel, hence the post above. We were asked to advise so we did & too the best of our collective ability.

It is a special situation/emergency. Please bear that in mind - what would you have done? said - thought ? for the best outcome and the future of the SLSA, put yrself in this situation, think, the decide what you think/feel.

We either bend a little and hold this emergency election or the SLSA folds. I think that pretty much sums it up. The time frame/ periods are also in flux.

I know that this with fall open to debate & I hope that it does. I think persons will either support or not. Either way the future of the SLSA relies upon the fact that some rule flex be allowed in some area's. If not then it is all over - in essence it's as simple and complex as that.
Poid Mahovlich
SLSA Advisor & Event Day Security Person

User avatar
Craig Stallion
SLSA Hall of Fame
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 1:04 am
Location: On a wave somewhere
Contact:

Post by Craig Stallion »

Having been a director I understand that there are circumstances that require special attention and a bending of the rules. That is not what was in question. My only question is to the tenure that these newly elected directors will be in for. I understand that it is a special circumstance and everything and agree that this was needed and that this is the best case scenario in terms of allowing a fair and adequate representation of all interested parties. That being said, I know that a few have requested certain people run and this is a legitimate question as to time they can expect to stay in office. Under normal circumstances, a party that decides to run for a director's position knows up front the length that they will stay in office, 6 months. These people haven't been told up front what they can expect. Will they merely be on for 2 months until the end of the season and then required to run again? Will they have a full 6 month term? Rani and Poid both talked about being transparent about this whole process and that is a necessity and directly what my question reflects. This is addressing concerns of people that do not know and no formal response has been given. In Rani's above post it recommended that they be on for a full term but no one has stated for sure. Bottom line is these potential candidates have a right to know what to expect. It may change a lot of people's minds, it may not, it may back a few people out, it may cause a few people to run that weren't previously thinking about running if they know it is only a couple of months.
~*~ In order to see change, we must be the change ~*~

User avatar
Abel Halderman
Posts: 1837
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:07 am
SL Name: Abel Halderman
Location: New Mexico
Contact:

Post by Abel Halderman »

I do agree with you Craig and I would like to know the answer to that question, too. Honestly, I would see the new directors having their offices untill the next PLANNED elections happens, that means in 1-1.5 months if I do math ok. Thet's the only option for keeping the rules work somehow. If it doesn't happen, as I said in my other post, the open spots after the new elected directors leave will be filled by a decision of those directors who keeps their offices. It's going to be 2 directors only because now we will vote for 3. It doesn't sound too democratic. How it is going to be?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest