Candidate Participation in Forums

The point of the original thread, before it got moved here, seemed to be judging the fitness of a candidate for the national BoD for the job based on his not answering questions posed in a sub-forum set up on this site to host the candidates' campaign statements. My point was the candidates did not set up these forums and may not know they exist; or that they have any activity, much less questions being asked and moderators making value judgements about how quickly the questions are responded to.

FWIW, the candidate so-maligned actually set up a web page to communicate events between his regional chapters and had previously posted a candidacy statement on his own site. In this election the BoD decided not to allow links to such private sites and instead made the sub-forums we've have here now. This really isn't about board-members participating on this web site--although that would be great! It was originally about a moderator condemning a candidate for not participating in a thread he didn't even know existed. Funny, isn't it?

Ouch...I'm a "magazine" member for over 15 years, closer to twenty I reckon. I don't count as much as a guy who gets out to the events? I travel too much to actually attend the events in my area. Every newsletter I receive I get to check off the nope not home, nope not home... Yes I chose my work and I get to drive a couple BMW's but my price is missing the events. Eventually I'll become a real member and attend events too and really get my money's worth.

As for the topic...it seems a bit far fetched to me that the organization would set up the forums for candidate discussion and then fail to mention their existence to the candidates. If I were running for the board I'd sure get familiar with this internet thingy if I wasn't comfortable already. Candidates ought to be responding to questions asked of them and members who are familiar with them ought to help them realize they are in effect hurting their chance for success?

As a member of a board for a different sort of club I personally feel that anyone who actually wants to be on a board is insane and therefore poorly suited for the job.

Nope; desire counts twice as much! But still, growth for the sake of growth isn't healthy. Not in our crowded cities, and not in the Club. It's unsupportable unless the members are at least enthusiastic about something.

I don't disagree with you, but do we know this is not the case? Is the office staff still waiting for the candidates to get their Roundel to see how to vote or participate in the forum the Club set up, or do you think they might have taken a couple of minutes to actually email them and let them know? We don't know this, do we? And yet somehow I think if any of these candidates knew there were questions sitting here waiting for them, they'd most likely answer them.

I've done one better (I hope): there is a meeting of all candidates tonight. The executive director will be reminding all of the candidates to visit their pages.

Wow.... while this discussion has certainly been interesting, I would like to hear if the candidates were told of the existence of this thread. Would the person or persons who created it please let us know so we can at least close that debate?

When an opportunity for posting to a Q & A is allowed, I would think that my Q would be A'ed.

Concerning the questioning of how I choose board members early in this discussion, I am certainly taking into account several items other than "did they read my post". The candidate statements have been available for months and have been studied. I also am lucky enough to have access to chapter newsletters and do follow what other folks are doing through those. If I am on the fence with my decision, and one person has addressed my questions and even followed up with another communication outside of this forum, I believe that would and should assist me in making my choice. I may be off base, but in my mind Secretary = communication especially at the national level. As our organization begins to send in their votes I feel good about my choice, and knowing there are some who will vote based on "this candidate has the same first name as the bully who beat me up in third grade" - which is their prerogative - I feel I have done due diligence.

Damn, you people are annoying. Now I'll have to go read that candidates' forum. May even feel the compulsion to cast a vote ...

Hold on there! Let's not get hasty!

Yeah; I know. I can be pretty rash. But having read J.R.'s statement just now, I've got two things to say.

First, Chuck Lonsdale is in the EverGLADES Chapter, not the EverGREEN Chapter. [Although the Everglades are always green ... Do we even have an Evergreen Chapter?] No problem; that's just a simple brain fart.

Second, THOSE ARE FORUMS? I've been looking at that part of the screen for a month or so now wondering why it was in the way. My reaction now is similar to Phil's, only with this twist: Even if J.R. knew there was a forum, HOW WOULD HE FIND IT? There's this teeny little thing by his name, just like everyone and everything else in that area. It looks like a bullet point, not a subforum link. Why make it so different, and more difficult, than the rest of the forum? Just because we can? I have never seen a forum with such wildly different-appearing subforums in it for no good reason. I do not know who set up those link graphics (Jonathan?), but it was a seriously poor idea. In my book, that alone would give J.R. a pass for being dilatory.

We do have a Pine Tree Chapter though.

Green Mountain and Bluegrass, too. But ain't none of 'em in Florida where I know Chuck & Bobbi are ...