Petition for Removal of Board Members

[MAtherton]

Correction, the report format is year-month-sequence of report. So both are in june. The .number indicates draft version.

[Malissa]

Good catch thanks

[ScottS]

I’m still confused about the action of the 6/29/23. At the board meeting prior to the election 6/15/23 there were 4 violation brought to the BOD and 2 were dismissed and 2 were held over to the next meeting. Then the election happens. With in 6 day of the last board meeting 16 violation appear and instead of waiting until the next board meeting, a “special meeting” is called (which requires 5 day notice) and two member are dismissed. One being a newly elected BoD VP and it is 24 hours before the newly elected board takes their positions. I am hoping that NONE of those 16 violation were submitted by either the members of the BoD or CoCRC (because they should recuse themselves from voting in the matter).
The timeline and the action taken is SHADY.
I am neither Columbo nor Alex Jones, I am a long standing member who is trying to understand what the F*** is going on. Explain how this is not perceived as a coordinated effort.

[Malissa]

@ScottS

I am hoping that NONE of those 16 violation were submitted by either the members of the BoD or CoCRC (because they should recuse themselves from voting in the matter).

Re read the minutes that’s all I’m saying.

[Sherry]

@ScottS

I am hoping that NONE of those 16 violation were submitted by either the members of the BoD or CoCRC (because they should recuse themselves from voting in the matter)

1. Fishing for information on the complainants is inappropriate.
2. As stated in December when this suggestion was made in another case, another board member pointed out that no, then all you’d have to do is pick a fight with half the board and then say there was no one qualified to kick you out no matter what you’d done. Too easy to abuse this situation.
3. You’re assuming the 16 violations all appeared in that time frame rather than some having existed over months with remediation steps attempted. Your assumptions are incorrect.

[Malissa]

Come to think of it. When an executive session is called any non board members who are included in the executive session should be listed on the meeting minutes. @doug.wilson could you correct that on the minutes on the wiki at your convenience?

[ScottS]

@Sherry

You’re assuming the 16 violations all appeared in that time frame rather than some having existed over months with remediation steps attempted. Your assumptions are incorrect.

That does not follow with the minutes and the CoCRC procedures if the violations/threats were so egregious.

The work of the group is time-sensitive.

If immediate action is required, three members may decide to take temporary action as they deem appropriate. All non-recused members will participate in determinations.

The group may use email, conference call, video conference, or in-person meetings as they determine appropriate.

The group is allowed to take immediate temporary action to protect members via forum moderation or disabling badge access as needed. The Board should be notified if immediate temporary action is taken.

If that is required, the report should have a determination made within 3-5 days. If there is a need to make temporary actions permanent, the Board will be consulted and the determination handled. That will then fall under the Bylaws for non-scheduled Board Meetings.

[Sherry]

See Rustin’s official statement on its own thread for further information.

[Gretchen]

Replying here to a comment that Kez made in another thread because it’s more relevant here.

@Kez

This forum is effectively a digital bulletin board in addition to being a place of conversation, so the request last night was valid.

But if the mods deemed that request invalid, then this one is invalid too.
A+B=C
B+A=C

I see no difference.

I’m in favor of both remaining open, but it’s not my call. The difference, however, should be obvious.

Imagine for a moment how you’d feel if somebody posted a link to a poll accusing you of various terrible things, and asking people to take action based on those claims by submitting a form.

Then imagine that they asked for the thread to be closed so that nobody-- including you-- could respond to ask for evidence of, or even clarification about, the accusations made in the link.

I don’t think you’d be happy about it. I think you’d probably consider it an attempt to use forum moderation to silence views contrary to those expressed in the link.

Because in that situation, it’s effectively saying “Hey, here’s my opinion! If you agree with me, click this box to try and convert that opinion into real-world action. By the way, there’s no option to express that you disagree, or even to ask for more information. Only opinions that agree with me are counted here. Thanks!”

[mikeb]

@Megan_Frost

We do wish that this petition be allowed to be viewed by all members, as is our right under the bylaws, Section 6: Resignation, Termination and Vacancies: “…An Officer or Director may be removed as an Officer or Director by written petition signed by more than two-thirds (2/3rds) of the voting membership…”

Questions about the practical aspects of doing an online petition in this context:

1. Are the petition creators doing any verification that the name of the member ‘signing’ the petition isn’t being spoofed?

2. Do you intend to collect signatures indefinitely, or at some certain date to end the petition?

3. Are online signers going to be contacted to collect a physical signature before submitting the results for further action?

4. Is there a mechanism to allow a person to resubmit a new form when/if they’ve changed their mind? Does that mechanism, if any, accommodate changing to selecting zero Board members for recall?

5. Are you also collecting signatures offline?

[Megan_Frost]

Hi Mike,
Thanks for asking these questions. I’ve copied them and answered below each one.
Questions about the practical aspects of doing an online petition in this context:
1. Are the petition creators doing any verification that the name of the member ‘signing’ the petition isn’t being spoofed?
a) Yes. Our team consists of active members of MakeICT, some who are in leadership positions - not at the Board level, who have agreed to do a first verification of submitted names/email addresses. First verification will consist of flagging those names that seem to be fraudulent e.g., Mickey Mouse, Nikola Tesla, Marie Curie, etc. Fraudulent entries will be discarded. The rest of the submissions will then be verified. Any submissions that are not found in current membership at the time of the count will also be discarded.
Should this garner enough support to be submitted,the MakeICT Board and/or Leadership may also verify signatures at their discretion.

2. Do you intend to collect signatures indefinitely, or at some certain date to end the petition?
a) Signatures will be collected until either:
i. Approximately 1 week before the member meeting in September 2023.
OR
ii. The petition reaches 360 verified signatures.
Whichever comes first.
Should we receive additional signatures in the week preceding the September 2023 member meeting, we would do our best to verify those in an effort that they could be included in the final number.

3. Are online signers going to be contacted to collect a physical signature before submitting the results for further action?
a) It is our hope that, pending the appropriate number of verified electronic signatures, the Board and Leadership of MakeICT will respect the results of the Google form. Precedence for using electronic voting has been set, not only with the annual election votes being cast electronically but also the Board has been known to vote via email. We consider this hope to be well within reasonable expectations.
b) Should the Leadership of MakeICT require physical signatures, we would then use the email addresses collected by the Google form to contact petitioners and request physical signatures.

4. Is there a mechanism to allow a person to resubmit a new form when/if they’ve changed their mind? Does that mechanism, if any, accommodate changing to selecting zero Board members for recall?
a) No, there is not a mechanism to change selections once the form is submitted. This is one of the reasons that Google forms was chosen.
b) Any completely empty form submissions will be removed from the final count. If you want to select no Board members for recall, just don’t submit the form.

5. Are you also collecting signatures offline?
a) See 3a. It is our hope that this will not be required. The Google form is currently the only way to sign the petition. If you are having trouble accessing the Google form, feel free to email concernedmember5920@gmail.com and one of our team will be happy to help walk you through accessing the form.
Questions that you didn’t ask, but others have:
1. What if we don’t get enough signatures to remove one or more of the listed Board members?
a) Depending on the number of signatures, we see two potential options:
i. If it is a significantly low number, then we cut our losses and move on. No harm, no foul. We exercised our right to petition and the petition died. It happens. All names/email addresses would be destroyed.
ii. If the petition garners support in numbers that are too low to affect the removal of a Board member(s) but still a number that we deem is a significant representation of the community, we will go through the verification process. Once the signatures/emails are verified, we will bring the petition before the Board and request that the emails be verified by 1 person, who agrees to keep said names confidential, mutually agreed upon by us and the Board. Once verified, the petition dies.
In either case, it gives tangible feedback to the Board while also protecting people who signed the petition.
2. Will the Board retaliate against me if I sign this petition?
If the petition fails, MakeICT Board will never have access to names/email addresses.
If there is retaliation by Board members, former Board members, or Leadership over the petitioners, it would violate the COC and should be reported immediately.
Regardless of the outcome of this petition, it is our intent that all names/email addresses submitted on this petition will be destroyed October 2023.
Thank you for your questions, Mike.

[gemma]

@Megan_Frost

The rest of the submissions will then be verified.

How will they be verified? As in, please explain the process you will use to verify these submissions against the list of current members. How do you plan to obtain the list of current members? The current membership list will change over this three month period. If signees quit MakeICT before the Membership Meeting, do you have a process for removing them from the petition?

Per Mike’s first question, there’s nothing stopping me from filling out 20 forms right now using the names and email addresses of 20 other members. Verification against a current membership list won’t catch that.

Also, Article VI Section 6 of the Bylaws acknowledges both written and electronic forms of resignation, but specifically recognizes written forms of petition only. Before an electronic petition is valid, the Bylaws would first have to be changed.

[Kez]

@gemma

Per Mike’s first question, there’s nothing stopping me from filling out 20 forms right now using the names and email addresses of 20 other members.

I can’t speak to the rest of your questions, but I think there are bigger issues here, than the results of this petition, if you are accessing membership records and falsifying submissions to anything. Or really accessing membership records at all. Why would you have access to membership information?

[gemma]

I didn’t think stating this was hypothetical would be necessary.

[Kez]

Actually, it shouldn’t be a hypothetical consideration.
It is assumed that those people who have access to membership information are above reproach, few in number, and heavily vetted. If that is inaccurate, then, again, we probably have much bigger issues than this petition.

[gemma]

You’re sidestepping my questions, and I don’t understand why you’re concerned with my hypothetical and not concerned that the person who submitted this petition and/or unnamed people also involved with this petition do plan to have access to the membership list.

[Malissa]

@IT how many people have Wildapricot admin access? How many of those aren’t members in good standing (meaning they haven’t been paying dues)? It’s been my experience once access is granted to someone it’s not easily taken away, unless you ask to be removed or you do something to jeopardize the space.

[Kez]

well said, Malissa, well said.

[gemma]

You don’t even need admin access to Wild Apricot to pull up member names and email addresses. This can be done through the Event Checkin Tool which lots of people have access to. Even Kez.

[Kez]

Or maybe I trust that there are those in leadership who support exercising member rights, I trust that there are still some people who want the best for the space and the community, and that regardless of the outcome of this petition, we’ll all learn something and be better for it.

Maybe I don’t like it when the first assumption about anything counter-culture is that it’s bad and we should be suspicious.

Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t be so defensive and should be asking, what’s the root cause and how do we fix it. Didn’t @james.a.seymour make a post saying something like that?

Maybe, it’s late and we should all get some zzz’s.