Copy of Post in the Knight's Forum: Election of Knights as Advisory Council

Brick wrote:

MadHatter wrote:

JLSpinner wrote: We could reelect every year in July.

Actually, I like this idea but would modify it by staggering half every year and then the other half the next year so that we have some experience on the board at all times.

I too like the idea of reelection at the end of a fixed term, though I think every year (or voting ends erythromycin 6months if we stagger it) is a bit much. It also doesn't give newly elected individuals a great deal of time. I'd like a term to last at least 2years, if not 3.

Well, I did not mean stagger it six months and then 1 year. I meant 1/2 are up for election after a year and the other the second year. But I kind of agree maybe 2 years for one-half and 3 years for the other might be better as it gives time for people to establish themselves and get things done.

I like the idea of 2 year terms staggering half of the group each year. Of course how do we decide who is in which group?

I think 2 to 3 years is a good timeframe. New people need time to get proper footing. Being on council is not easy and takes time to learn.

JLSpinner wrote: I like the idea of 2 year terms staggering half of the group each year. Of course how do we decide who is in which group?

Elect the first half, and then leave it a year until you elect the second half, then just wait until the terms run out

Or elect the full selection straight off and at the first "reelect" randomly select two? Then just alternate between who's been there longer each there after?

JLSpinner wrote: I like the idea of 2 year terms staggering half of the group each year. Of course how do we decide who is in which group?

Each spot filled is numbered 1 2 3 etc. After all spots are elected a random number generator or coin flip decided even or odd for what spots are up for reelection. After that it would be something like spots 1 and 3 are up for election then 2 and 4 next year. It would just rotate like that from now on.

Though that could be a tad complex and maybe simple is better?

How about selecting the shorter term limits based on performance? Could be a way of motivating advisers to remain active. The regular Council could decide who will be up for reelection first based on their wider purview.

Random selection is fair, but if we end up with two non performing advisers randomly selected for another year it becomes less desirable...

And it may well be the case several don't work out or leave anyway. I'm all for term limits, so long as people can choose to stand for reelection (no point in throwing away good officers for the sake of it), but we don't have to know everything and decide everything right now if we can remain flexible. Choosing in, say, a year, may be a much simpler thing.

Depending on how active one is, it really only takes a few weeks at most to get the hang of things and a feel for what you’re doing.

If there are going to be term limits, I would look to one, maybe two years max.

Anything beyond that and one starts to get complacent in what they’re doing I think.

Indeterminate at this time, rather than indefinite, is the correct answer. My mistake.

The term decisions should be after the election and it will be one of the first things the new bigger better board will address. The other will be on the apprentice member. The Council is the board of directors of The Order. The terms are interchangeable.

Do y'all want to open the voting now and keep it open for 7 days?

If anyone is interested in Texas Non-Profit Corporation law I have a marked up and condensed version here . https://www.dropbox.com/s/iylkb4aynymgy5q/Texas-Non-Profit-Corporation-2012-JHP-BO.22.doc?dl=0

Some parts of it do not and can not apply to us so they are left out. Parts of particular interest are highlighted.

Thank you for the clarification.