Author |
Message |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues
Post Number: 652 Registered: 10-2002
| Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 08:37 pm: | |
The election results are posted on the CSINet web site. Total Ballots Received: 4,042 THE WINNING CANDIDATES: Office of President-elect: Gilman K. M. Hu, FCSI, AIA Office of Secretary: John Patrick McCaffrey, FCSI, CCS, AIA, SCIP Office of Vice President, Professional: David S. Proudfit, FCSI, CCS, AIA Office of Vice President, Industry/Associate: Tom R. Deines, FCSI, CCCA Institute Director – North Central Region: John M. Griffith, II, CSI Institute Director – Northwest Region: Robert W. Simmons, CSI, CDT Institute Director – Northeast Region: Scott Tobias, CSI, CDT, AHC Institute Director – Gulf States Region: M. Keith West, CSI, CDT Institute Director – Southeast Region: George Wade Bevier, CSI, CCS, LEED-AP, AIA Institute Director – West Region: Duane Michael Johnson, CSI, CDT In addition to the candidates for office, the ballot included two recommended changes to the CSI Bylaws. For a Bylaw change to pass, the initiative requires a two-third majority. Bylaw Change – Governance Restructure Did Not Pass 60.4% Bylaw Change – Honorary Member Name Change Did Pass 77.9% William |
George A. Everding, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: geverding
Post Number: 274 Registered: 11-2004
| Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 08:50 pm: | |
Did the Governance Restructure not pass because it got 60.4% YES votes (short of the 66.7% needed), or did it not pass because only 39.6% voted for it (60.4% NO votes)? The way the results were reported makes this unclear to me. In light of all the discussion that went on involving the restructuring and the passion demonstrated on both sides of this issue, it would be beneficial to know whether it fell short by 6.3% or by 27.1%. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues
Post Number: 653 Registered: 10-2002
| Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 09:11 pm: | |
George, I don't know how the bylaws actually read, not having a copy here in front of me as I write this, I only know how they reported it. They reported that it did not pass, that it received 60.4% of the vote and that it needed 66.7%. Literally, that's what the results stated that I saw. It did not state anything about the total percentage of membership, it only spoke about the voting numbers. It leads one to believe that the pass/fail is based on the percentage of those voting...thus if only a very minor 100 people were to vote out of many more thousands of total memberhsip, only 67 voting yes would carry a restrucutre. That's a bit wierd. Again, I don't know what the CSI bylaws state. I do know what a lot of other organization bylaws state, including many residential groups like homeowner's associations and cluster associations - they require 2/3 of the memberhip to pass, not just 2/3 of those voting. The way that Institute reported it out, its as though only 2/3 of 'those voting' were required, not 2/3 of 'total membership'. To get the real understanding, we all need to look at those bylaws. Maybe a good time to do so anyway as whether one was for or against the current inititative, the topic is one that is going to be on the front burner the next year - or more, William |
Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 243 Registered: 01-2003
| Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 09:37 pm: | |
It's not weird at all to rely only on ballots cast. Given the usual turnout in elections of any kind, it would be impossible to pass anything that required two thirds - or even a simple majority - of all members. It probably would be impossible to pass the initial bylaws, when people were actually interested, let alone later when the majority of members don't vote. |
William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues
Post Number: 654 Registered: 10-2002
| Posted on Sunday, March 18, 2007 - 09:55 pm: | |
No, its not wierd to necessarily rely on 2/3 of the votes cast - it is wierd to thnk that if only a small handfull of the membership could make a decision regarding the basis of the association for a membership of many thousand. Of course, if the membership is that apathetic in the first place, maybe its a good thing - though its still a bit wierd to consider. I know my cluster association requires a 2/3 of the membership to change the bylaws. We had to go door to door to canvas for votes just to change the bylaws. Then you discover real apathy - like when someone intentionally refuses to participate, even to vote no. One of the things that does strike me about his particular vote is that when we look at the votes validated a real minority participated. As debated (pro or con) as this issue was, there was still only what could be called a 'super minority' that actually participated. That's sad. What would be interesting would be to discover just what passed through the minds (or not) of those that failed to vote, failed to participate at all. Conjecture is one thing, but it is totally invalid - but it would be really interesting to poll the 'non-voters' to discover just why they did not vote. Then we might gain a better understanding of the internal apathy of this organization. Unfortunately, that is not likely possible - or at least not very easy to do. William |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 485 Registered: 07-2002
| Posted on Monday, March 19, 2007 - 01:06 pm: | |
the governance bylaws change did not pass because it did not get 66% of the vote -- it did get 60% of the vote. the vote was a very clear support of 60% to 40% FOR the restructure. the voting participation was 28%. |
(Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest
| Posted on Wednesday, April 04, 2007 - 04:11 pm: | |
We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate. - Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826) I guess we're in America... Lynn Javoroski |
Anonymous
| Posted on Monday, April 30, 2007 - 10:56 am: | |
The Governance Issue is not dead yet. If you have comments, concerns and/or ideas on re-packaging the Issues contact Eugene Valentine and Walt Marlowe. Better yet attend the Annual Meeting and bring it up for conversation. Otherwise you will see the Governance issue presented, plagerized, with different title. |
|