MCJones1810 wrote:
Jeff Bardon wrote:
A democratic vote of the Coalition membership
is deciding things. Marco could certainly have stood for the vote, but decided to quit instead. That was entirely his choice, no one made it for him.
Mark, your position is the height of absurdity. Keep repeating it as a mantra if you like. It won't make it any better.
You chose to escalate the matter and strip him of the title and office, instead of having a discussion about your respective positions and asking him to make the choice ("hey Marco, you can't not participate in the cabinet and still remain as CiC, so the majority of the cabinet feels you either need to resign the position or participate.) Since almost nothing was posted in the cabinet forum during the period that he packed up his proverbial ball and went home, it's not like anything was really going on anyway.
You choose to ignore the fact that Marco was the CiC, but you denied him the chance to stand for re-election in that role in the scheduled vote this year.
You chose to one up one man's immature act with one of your own.
You choose to ignore the fact that it was you who deleted his name from the list of cabinet officers before any vote of any kind had occurred.
You choose to ignore the fact that you barred him from the cabinet discussion until you had a chance to review his "reinstatement" with the rest of the cabinet.
Congratulations on successfully playing the semantics game well enough to convince others of your position. I find it sad and a disappointment that immediately after conducting a vote to institute new rules that include opening club command positions to election, the first action that the majority of the cabinet takes is to make up a new rule interpretation and force someone out.
You made the determination that his act of pique amounted to a resignation but could not be bothered to actually have a discussion with him to try and resolve your obvious differences on the interpretation of the role of CiC and the cabinet as a required duty. Someone needed to be the adult in the room and have a mature discussion to resolve the difference so the expectation was clear going forward. Unfortunately, no one stepped up and did so. There is a time to be a stubborn disciplinarian, but this wasn't it. When we needed cooler heads to prevail, we got heated words and frustrated hasty actions.
I've seen the comments about if he isn't going to fulfill his duty as a cabinet member, he can't be CiC. If he isn't going to do one of the job requirements, it amounts to a de facto resignation. Really? If someone doesn't do all their listed duties then they have effectively resigned even if they never actually state the words "I resign?" Well, the rules under which the president was elected previously required a quarterly submission of an article to a club newsletter. Since that never happened, does that mean that we've been operating without a club president for years? Oh no!! And, the club secretary is required to submit reviews of new game titles, and that hasn't happened in years either. OMG! And those are duties that are or were specifically enumerated and not an interpretation.
So, I'll repeat, I look forward to the coalition choosing it's next CiC, via a democratic election. It's the heavy handed manner used to create the current opening that I find objectionable.
NWC
Login
FAQ
