Re: [802SEC] Term limits
Buzz,
I am (or you are) in fact, concurring that we may not be that wise and hence let
the membership speak without there being any implicit influence!
-ajay
On 2/13/2005 11:26 PM, Rigsbee, Everett O wrote:
> Ajay, I'm sorry but if over 75% of the voters want the incumbent to stay, then he ought to stay. Obviously the opposition has insufficient voter appeal to get elected. If it were a simple majority that would be something else, but it says at least 75%, which in my book is a very solid mandate. Who are we to say NO to a 75% mandate. I just don't think we are quite that wise and infallible. :-)
>
> Thanx, Buzz
> Dr. Everett O. (Buzz) Rigsbee
> Boeing - SSG
> PO Box 3707, M/S: 7M-FM
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> (425) 865-2443 Fx: (425) 865-6721
> Cell: (425) 417-1022
> everett.o.rigsbee@boeing.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ajay Rajkumar [mailto:ajayrajkumar@LUCENT.COM]
> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 3:57 PM
> To: STDS-802-SEC@listserv.ieee.org
> Subject: Re: [802SEC] Term limits
>
>
> Even though last several emails on this subject seem to indicate that option #4 has a lot of appeal, let me offer another view.
>
> As option #1 rationale stated "It is too difficult to overcome the power/influence of incumbency without term limits", option #4 still does not address this.
>
> Since option #4 would be tested at the time a Chair/Vice-Chair is up for re-election, the same "power/influence of incumbency" would be in action.
>
> One way to address that may be to get some feedback from the WGs now without the influence of an overhanging election of a Chair/Vice-Chair.
>
> -ajay
>
> On 2/11/2005 6:36 PM, Grow, Bob wrote:
>
>>Colleagues:
>>
>>We discussed possible changes on term limits at a prior EC meeting,
>>though I doubt that all requirements of 7.1.6.1 were fulfilled. Out
>>of fairness to all, if we are going to change this, it should be
>>resolved by November 2005 at the latest.
>>
>>I want to try to determine the preferences of the EC on this matter
>>before advocating any specific change in March.
>>
>>At present, the specific text within 7.2.2 reads:
>>
>>"An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given
>>Working Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may
>>not be elected to that office again."
>>
>>One common rationale would be the desire to retain the services of a
>>willing and capable officer rather than that officer being arbitrarily
>>forced out. There is less than universal agreement on what approach to
>>take for this, but I remember four clear alternatives:
>>
>>1. Leave term limits as is.
>>
>>Rationale: Term limits do open up leadership opportunities for
>>people. It is too difficult to overcome the power/influence of
>>incumbency without term limits.
>>
>>2. Strike the entire paragraph.
>>
>>Rationale: The rules allow replacement of WG officers at any plenary
>>meeting (7.2.2). Working Groups in the past would have liked to have
>>kept a term-limited Chair.
>>
>>3. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair of a given
>>Working Group for a total of more than eight years in that office may
>>not be elected to that office again."
>>
>>Rationale: Term limiting the Chair only still opens up leadership
>>opportunities at the top, allowing either a Vice Chair to move up or
>>someone new to take the Chair position. A Vice Chair may with to
>>continue in his/her role rather than take the Chair position. WGs
>>with multiple Vice Chairs arbitrarily limit those people by term
>>limits even though they may be changing responsibilities within the WG
>>(Moving from 2nd Vice Chair to 1st Vice Chair).
>>
>>4. Change to read: "An individual who has served as Chair or Vice
>>Chair of a given Working Group for a total of more than eight years in
>>that office may only be eligible for election to that office again as
>>the result of a motion passed by 75% of the voting members present."
>>
>>Rationale: Just as we currently grant the WG the ability to elect a
>>new Chair at any plenary session by 75% vote, the WG should have
>>similar latitude to retain a Chair independent of term limits.
>>
>>My preferences lean toward options 4 or 3. (Just to be clear, I find
>>it inconceivable that I personally will ever test the term limits.)
>>
>>Comments and preferences appreciated.
>>
>>--Bob Grow
>>---------- This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
>>reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
>
> ----------
> This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.