It's about trust of what will be done with them, not conditions or a gift.. I personally have 30 years of places that have been aquired with 30 years of scouting and effort to discover, some places that are extremely personal to me that I have been hunting for
that long.....

Fundad

Edited for grammar, I still butchered the English language I am sure..

I already take the database into consideration, even for regional offices. For all of the regional offices I only vote for people who contribute to the database on a semi-regular basis, and I think this is especially important for the Pres, VP, and Conservation Officer. For the International Coordinator, I don't think I'd vote for anyone unless I felt they took the database seriously enough to regularly enter their data and be making an effort to get all their significant finds into it. And I hope (and think) that for some people that still might only be 100-200 entries a year, and I don't think that members need to be told a specific threshold in order to take database entry seriously when voting. I think the database is being taken very seriously now (just look at how many community members started contributing on a significant basis in 2009-present), and I don't think that's going to change.

Just checking. You implied Steve would have the IC job until he "retires", and while that may be the case, he does need to be nominated and elected every year, so its possible for him not to win an election.



And please continue to do so, your opinion is likely shared by others who remain silent. For me, I am willing to try and incorporate other opinions with mine to arrive at a compromise solution.



I think it is too soon to make a 3 year requirement. 2 years is ok.

Here is the section of Article X in the current bylaws dealing with the International Coordinator..."The International Board of Directors and the NAFHA members will elect an International Coordinator who will serve to steer the NAFHA and the database with the assistance of the International Board. This election will be determined by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA."

The term is one year and elections are same as in chapters. November comes and we nominate someone for IC. Members vote in December. More than one person can be nominated for IC, I assume. We can vote for our candidate. The only thing I can see changing at the moment is the qualifications. It doesn't list any...should we?

How about... The IC should be a very active and contributing member of NAFHA for at least two years; have good organizational and leadership skills demonstrated by their participation in one of the chapters; and have a firm grasp of the structure and purposes of NAFHA. I'm sure the membership will vote for the most qualified candidate. Just some thoughts...

Terry

You hope that stays the same.. Tim W just rocked the place with a bunch really great entries last night.. But that said Jonathan, as someone in the community for a long time, there are many many many others that could rock the place with their entries, that are still holding out, because they are NOT yet believers in what we do.. Just sayin..



My way of showing support for Steve currently, even though we have butted heads a few times..



You do, do that it is noticed, and appreciated.. I have always said you and Kyle are an example to us all..




I am still liking the one year, and if the IC is doing a good job, there is NO doubt we wouldn't reelect him/her.

Heck have we not reelected anyone at any level yet?

Terry Wrote:


Not so sure, the most popular person, might trump the most qualified. Happens in ALL walks of life..

Fundad

PS Anyway gentlemen, I concede my position for now, as I am in a extreme minority (alone I think in my position) Carry on..

The only problem with 'very active' is that it is subjective... some possible future canidates may be otherwise emminantly qualified, but HAVE a full-time job, family or other important obligations (church, coaching little league. ect)... and may not BE ABLE to fieldherp as much as they wish they could. And taking on the IC job is like taking another part-time job, which further limits the time they may get to herp. Ideally, the IC should be someone who's worked for years running an organization, but herps as much as he/she can, given the vicissitudes of life.
That's why I like 'years of service' as an active member... we will be able to judge, given the person's life-circumstances, if his/her entry numbers are 'reasonable'.

Come next year's elections, we will have been in existance a full 5 years... I think that requiring the IC to have been an 'active member' for 60% of that time, with 'reasonable entries' shows the long-term commitment an IC should have.

Brian... my BTW comment was not aimed at you, but rather at the un-named person you mentioned that HAS pulled his records. I don't think that the NAFHA's long-term goals will ever differ from what I would like to see happen, enough for me to pull records. If our goals weren't the same, I wouldn't have 'donated' my records in the 1st place... and I wouldn't pull them because things weren't being done the way I wanted them to be done. The image of Eric Cartman saying "Screw you guys.... I'm going Home, and taking my ball" always pops in my head, when I think of someone pulling their records. Thats just the way I personally feel, and I reserve the right to feel that way... jim
And ps... I'm gonna ROCK feb... starting in about an hour from now...

I like your suggestion. The only thing I can see that might be a little troublesome is that some of these implied qualifications are more subjective than objective in the eyes of our members. This could be a good thing though, as it may require candidates to do a little campaigning and showcase their personal accomplishments with NAFHA in order to satisfy the requirements of the office and win the confidence of voting members.

you absolutely have the right to feel that way.. I just disagree.. I am going to do anything I can to protect a lifetime of effort...

Good luck on your trip...


Fundad

Well, if the most popular won out, and didn't really have much in the way of leadership skills, we still have the International Board and all the chapters that would help control things and get us through that year. That's one reason I'd like to keep the one year office for now. If our IC is really good, shouldn't be any problem getting reelected. If someone better comes along in the meantime, then maybe someone new gets voted in. I think the biggest problem with any organization is apathy and lack of participation. We need leaders at all levels and if we can keep that enthusiasm going then we will have a healthy organization, if not we may start to falter.

Jim, and Steve, I know that the terms are subjective, and may be too subjective for some of us, but being subjective leaves room for interpretation and doesn't tie one down to an exact amount of anything. How subjective we can be is up to what we negotiate here, so we need to work out the details. I personally don't like to give an exact amount, like a certain number of data entries, or a certain number of years being active, or a certain amount of time spent in the field. I think putting the ideas in people's heads that these are things we're looking at will help them decide who is best qualified.

I think at least two years active would work for me, but I can live with three years active also. However the group decides that is ok with me.

Terry

I think we should remind ourselves that our amendments will not be written in stone if approved. It would be nice to get them perfect now, but realistically that is not going to happen. If something is not working out or something unexpected arises we can revisit theses in a few years and make the necessary changes. Therefore, I would lean on the conservative side of applying restrictions. The process of voting for candidates, in theory, gives us the ability to choose higher standards than what is written. If we are too exclusive in the bylaws, and find ourselves in a situation where we have no candidates to vote for, we will have to go through a period of having no IC while things get worked out and that can hold us back as an organization.

Would it make any sense, with the exception of one or two years of activity as a prerequisite, to spell out the job requirements in the IC job description rather than set a standard for a candidate to meet? That way the voting members can understand what the job requirements are and judge for themselves who the best candidate is.

I'm sure that whatever you guys hammer out will be reasonable, so (for what it's worth)...
Mr Dictator sir, do I have your permission to go herp every day, for the rest of this month?
Whoo Hoooo... nor cal, here I come...CYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA jim

NO - You will stay here and work, and you will like it.

What job requirements, Steve? If we say at least two years active and have to be a contributing chapter member, those are requirements, but the other qualifications are subjective, unless we list things. Let's see...must be able to read, maybe high school diploma, have held a job in the last two years, no wait, I'm retired, that wouldn't work. How about must have worked as officer or manager? Naa, I was a teacher, that wouldn't work. How about we let candidates write up a summary of what they think their qualifications are...organizational skills, data contributor, degree in management, dedicated to NAFHA for the past five years, served as chapter president last two years. Hmmmm, I might be qualified; but, alas, I don't want to be IC, so wouldn't accept the nomination. How many would accept nomination?

TC

I think that makes the most sense. Once we get a feel for the requirements on paper, we will better be able to decide what restrictions (if any) should be in place.

Steve, you probably have the best feel for the requirements, so how about you get us started?

I interpreted job requirements to mean the things that the IC is actually required to do in the position. If those were clearly spelled out, we could decide ourselves whether potential candidates had the qualifications to hold such a position.

Exactly what I was trying to say.

A list of "must haves" would be a list of requirements or prerequisites to be a nominee. But if what the job entails is spelled out as duties of the office, it gives a clear picture as to what that person is going to be expected to do.

I'll work on a first draft and post it in a little while.

Sorry for the delay on this. That was quite a little while. My employer actually expects me to work once in a while. The nerve!

Instead of trying to write the language of the bylaw right now, here's what I see as the duties and qualifications of the IC.

Duties of the IC.
1) Co-Moderator of International Board Forum with the DC.
3) Non-voting chairman of the International Board of Directors - votes only in the event of a tie vote.
3) Co-Moderator of the Main Forum with the DC.
4) Co-Moderator of the Members Only Forum with the DC and all Chapter Presidents (assuming this is possible).
5) Responsible for assisting all chapters with year-end officer nominations and election polls and ensuring that elections are carried out in accordance with the bylaws.
6) Co-Liaison with DC between data requesters and NAFHA.
7) Counsel to members in issues regarding the bylaws and ethics.
8) Serves as coordinator to members wishing to form new chapters.

Qualifications of the IC
1) must have been a member for a minimum of 2 years.
2) must be active chapter member
3) must have endorsement of at least 2 chapter officers from the chapter in which the candidate is a member or from the chapter in which the candidate is most active if he is a member of more than one chapter.

Qualifications such as management experience or biological experience or academic degrees can all be presented as "personal qualifications" at the time of the nominations and as part of a campaign.

These are my thoughts.

I mentioned this earlier, but I'd like to bring it up again. I'd like to see some guidelines in the bylaws for the method by which the IB makes decisions on issues that should be voted on. There are presently no guidelines for how a vote of the IB is decided.

In some cases we may want it to be a unanimous vote and in others maybe only the majority of the votes cast, but there needs to be some guidelines for the IB members to follow.

Steve, thats a good list!

I think you nailed it...

As for the voting, 18 unanimous is a big number... perhaps 2/3 majority?

If we can even get everyone to show up and vote.

Well, If you hit 12 either way the vote would be over.

Good list of duties, Steve.

For qualifications, how about...."A nominee for IC must have been an active chapter member for at least two years and must have the endorsement of at least two of the officers in the chapter the nominee is most active in. Candidates shall be able to present their personal qualifications at the time of nominations and as part of a campaign."

TC

Two thirds makes good sense to me...

I agree that a unanimous vote by the IB is probably impossible to meet. I only mentioned it because there was talk about it when we were discussing the expulsion of a member. We can't even get all of our present IB members to comment on simple issues we're presently discussing, even after asking all of them to participate via PM.

A 2/3 majority or possibly 100% of the votes cast would be more practical in major issues. The simple majority of votes cast in every day issues would be OK by me.

Fundad

Don't like the endorsement, AT ALL. Why put chapter officers in that position, to say yes or no, it puts them in a no win spot?

I feel STRONGLY about this.
Fundad

Ok, how 'bout an adjustment...

For qualifications, how about...."A nominee for IC must have been an active chapter member for at least two years and must have the nomination and a second from two active chapter members. Candidates shall be able to present their personal qualifications at the time of nominations and as part of a campaign."

TC

Works for me.

Thats fine with me too..



Fundad

Just for clarification, Terry,
Are you suggesting that the nomination and second to the nomination come from active chapter members from the candidates primary chapter, or from any active chapter members?

The way I said it was just two active chapter members, not having to be from the same chapter. I would specify it, if they had to be from the same chapter.

Terry

Here's an edited version of Article X with the new IC duties and qualifications, plus a description of the IC voting process.


ARTICLE X. INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

A. The International Board of Directors shall consist of the International Coordinator, the Database Coordinator, the President of each chapter, and one International Board Member elected from the active membership of each chapter, and they shall manage the affairs of the NAFHA.

B. The International Board of Directors and the NAFHA members will elect an International Coordinator who will serve to steer the NAFHA and the database with the assistance of the International Board. Nominations for the International Coordinator will be placed in November with elections held in December pursuant of Article VIIA. A candidate for the office of International Coordinator must have been an Active Chapter Member of the association for at least 2 years, and be nominated and receive a second to the nomination from 2 other Active Chapter Members .

C. The duties of the International Coordinator shall include but not be limited to the following:
1) Serve as non-voting chairman of the International Board of Directors, and vote only in the event of a tie vote.
2) Serve as Co-Moderator of International Board Forum with the Database Coordinator.
3) Serve as Co-Moderator of the Main Forum with the Database Coordinator.
4) Serve as Co-Moderator of the Members Only Forum with the Database Coordinator and all Chapter Presidents
5) Assist all chapters with year-end officer nominations and election polls ensuring that elections are carried out in accordance with the bylaws.
6) Serve as Co-Liaison with Database Coordinator between NAFHA and data requesters.
7) Serve as counsel to members with issues regarding ethics and these bylaws.
8) Serve as coordinator to members wishing to form new chapters.

D. The term for the International Coordinator shall be one year and may be elected to office more than once with no limit on consecutive terms. In the event that a person elected is unable or unwilling to assume the office, the office shall remain open until a suitable candidate can be elected by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA.

E. The Database Coordinator shall oversee the database and the data release process. There is no term limit for the Database Coordinator, however the Database Coordinator may be dismissed by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA. In the event that this position comes open, the Database Coordinator shall be elected by a vote pursuant to ARTICLE VIIA.

F. Decisions by a vote of the International Board of Directors shall be determined as follows:
1) A 2/3 majority vote is required in any and all matters regarding the suspension, termination or reinstatement of a member, and/or the forming, suspension, annexing or reinstatement of a chapter.
2) A simple majority of the votes cast in polls regarding all other matters.

Print it...

moving on....

Dave

Looks good.

So, can I go all grammar policeman on it, since it's going to be an official document?




I believe this should be "pursuant to".





Who may be elected? The term? Subject confusion - either say "and the International Coordinator may be elected", break it up into two sentences, or otherwise reword it.





Position comes open? I know what it means, but I'm not sure that's proper English. I think it should be "position becomes open" or "position opens up" or something else.

I'm good with it, and the changes...

So jonathan, I nominate you to be the official "grammar cop" for NAFHA.

Good eye, I missed the errors myself!

I say do the corrections jonathan suggests and then go with it (the final result).

Dave

I was hoping that if I waited long enough, our grammar cop would make the corrections himself!

I'm sure glad those were original mistakes, and not mine.

Hopefully this is it.


ARTICLE X. INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS

A. The International Board of Directors shall consist of the International Coordinator, the Database Coordinator, the President of each chapter, and one International Board Member elected from the active membership of each chapter, and they shall manage the affairs of the NAFHA.

B. The International Board of Directors and the NAFHA members will elect an International Coordinator who will serve to steer the NAFHA and the database with the assistance of the International Board. Nominations for the International Coordinator will be placed in November with elections held in December pursuant of to Article VIIA. A candidate for the office of International Coordinator must have been an Active Chapter Member of the association for at least 2 years, and be nominated and receive a second to the nomination from 2 other Active Chapter Members .

C. The duties of the International Coordinator shall include but not be limited to the following:
1) Serve as non-voting chairman of the International Board of Directors, and vote only in the event of a tie vote.
2) Serve as Co-Moderator of International Board Forum with the Database Coordinator.
3) Serve as Co-Moderator of the Main Forum with the Database Coordinator.
4) Serve as Co-Moderator of the Members Only Forum with the Database Coordinator and all Chapter Presidents
5) Assist all chapters with year-end officer nominations and election polls ensuring that elections are carried out in accordance with the bylaws.
6) Serve as Co-Liaison with Database Coordinator between NAFHA and data requesters.
7) Serve as counsel to members with issues regarding ethics and these bylaws.
8) Serve as coordinator to members wishing to form new chapters.

D. The term for the International Coordinator shall be one year and may be elected to office more than once with no limit on consecutive terms. In the event that a person elected is unable or unwilling to assume the office, the office shall remain open until a suitable candidate can be elected by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA.

E. The Database Coordinator shall oversee the database and the data release process. There is no term limit for the Database Coordinator, however the Database Coordinator may be dismissed by a vote pursuant to Article VIIA. In the event that this position comes becomes open, the Database Coordinator shall be elected by a vote pursuant to ARTICLE VIIA.

F. Decisions by a vote of the International Board of Directors shall be determined as follows:
1) A 2/3 majority vote is required in any and all matters regarding the suspension, termination or reinstatement of a member, and/or the forming, suspension, annexing or reinstatement of a chapter.
2) A simple majority of the votes cast in polls regarding all other matters.

This latest edited version has been posted on the Current Edits thread.