-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
Define procedures for TOB vacancy appointments #158
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -250,6 +250,11 @@ e. The TOB shall be composed of nine (9) individuals elected for their | |||||||||||||
| entity, or owned by or under common ownership with each other. TOB members | ||||||||||||||
| may not designate alternative representatives. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| In the event of a TOB vacancy, the remaining TOB members may either: | ||||||||||||||
| - i. Appoint an individual to fill the vacant seat. Appointed individuals serve until the next TOB election, no more than one calendar year from appointment. | ||||||||||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Is this a 2/3 vote? Unanimous? Majority? (my personal opinion would be that this should be a high bar given it circumvents the normal flow - either 2/3 or unanimous with a slight preference for the latter) This being one-year means we also have an automatic vacancy at the next election, right? That wouldn't be filled from that election, because it would be part of the other group term. That's sane (it lets the new crop participate in the appointment of that empty seat fresh again), but I want to make sure I'm understanding the timeline here.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Section 6(n) already covers "consensus by default with a 2/3 vote threshold"
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Section 6(n) already covers "consensus by default with 2/3 vote threshold"
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
and remove "either" |
||||||||||||||
| - ii. Run a new election to fill the vacant seat. Elected individuals serve for the duration of the group term (f), no more than two calendar years from election. | ||||||||||||||
|
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I was confused by this suggestion @samuelkarp. I think it's trying to say "if the TOB appoints an individual, and the original term remaining was for more than a year, then we must run a new election for the seat when there's 1 year remaining in the original term". If we leave this language out, we would still have the other options, giving us more flexibility (perhaps there's a reason we didn't run a new election before).
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, that's not what I was trying to say. The goal of this language was to allow the TOB to appoint someone immediately and to subsequently run an election that would replace the appointed seat. Section 6(e)(i) says "until the next TOB election, no more than one calendar year" and the clarification here says "new elections even if they are not regularly scheduled still count". This was what @mikebrow had suggested on the call and I wanted to make sure it was captured in the text.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Got it. I added a suggestion for (i) above that feels like an easier read for me. Particularly since it's not clear we can do multiple options with the "either" phrasing on line 253. |
||||||||||||||
| - iii. Take no action. | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
| f. TOB members shall be split into two (2) groups, serving for a term of two | ||||||||||||||
| (2) years on a staggered basis, where one group is elected each year. The | ||||||||||||||
| initial TOB will have four (4) TOB members who will only serve for a term of | ||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.