X-no-Archive:yes
I respectfully disagree with Stan and Judy. They have concerns that whilst
valid, are not addressing the situation, rather it appears to be plain
demagoguery. Let me explain.
When the special election ballot arrived, I called Jeff Odom who is/was on the
board and asked him what this was all about. It is very simple. Interex right
now is hurting from an attack of apathy. The last election had to be cancelled
because not enough people cared enough about Interex to vote. The existing
board was kept on. This is not the way to run a railroad! The board, rightly
or wrongly, decided to seek the ability to appoint members since the membership
did not even care enough to vote. In my mind it was the least damaging of
alternatives. I want Interex to continue and evolve. Yes, it has made
mistakes, and yes, it has pissed me and other people off at times, but overall,
it has done a fairly good job. I like the conference, I like IPROF, I like the
publications. There are some things that need to change in my opinion, but
overall, Interex is doing ok!
Judy took it upon herself to find out who would dare vote in favor of the
amendment, for whatever reason. Well, include me as one who voted FOR the
amendment. I have been a member of Interex since time immemorial and I do not
want it to go away simply because the membership ranks were artificially
swelled and not enough people voted in the last election. If we must replace
the board of directors through appointments, then so be it.
I wonder how many of the 29 people who told you they voted against the
amendment voted in the last election. If they did not vote then, why did they
vote now? Or better yet, if they voted now, why not then?
After my conversation with Jeff Odom, I voted for the amendment and then made
up my mind to run for the board of directors myself. I also reached the
following decision.
If enough people vote in the next election, and I am elected, I will serve.
If enough people vote in the next election, and I am not elected, then I do not
serve and will not accept an appointment.
If not enough people vote in the next election and I am asked to accept an
appointment, I will serve, because I want Interex to continue!
Some people have advanced the theory that the reason the vote count was
insufficient last year was because the slate was not qualified. Hogwash! But
if that is what people really believe, then hear this, I am qualified and if
again not enough people vote, then there is another problem which must be
addressed.
So if you are a member of this list, and you are not a member of Interex then
you need to become one right now. If you just didn't vote last year, you must
vote this year. At least you can vote against me, if you do not like my
position!
Kind regards,
Denys. . .
Denys Beauchemin
HICOMP
(800) 323-8863 (281) 288-7438 Fax: (281) 355-6879
denys at hicomp.com www.hicomp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Stan Sieler [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, 09 August, 1999 1:44 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Results of Interex "Special Election"
Judy writes:
> I have received 26 responses representing 30 votes to date. The results so
> far are 1 YES and 29 NO.
Ahh...one person who either couldn't read, or couldn't work out the
implications of what they read. The only other conspiracy-free
alternative is to assume that they don't care about the electoral
process ... because they voted for a known faulty bylaw, hoping
that it would be corrected later. If a law is faulty, it's your duty to
vote against it ... and perhaps help to get a non-faulty one on the ballot.
(The conspiracy theory is that the "yes" voter was fully aware of the
flaw, and hoped to benefit from it somehow. :) for the humor impaired)
--
Stan Sieler [log in to unmask]
http://www.allegro.com/sieler/
|
