sPHENIX Institutional Board

["W.A. Zajc" <zajc AT nevis.columbia.edu>]

Dear Vicki:

We did discuss this in the bylaws committee, and decided to be not to be 
proscriptive. The collaboration will be entrusting the conduction of the 
election to respected and independent “monitors” (also deliberately not 
specified in the bylaws). The working assumption is that those conducting the 
actual vote tabulation will have the wisdom to conduct run-offs as 
circumstances dictate. For example, a different decision would be reached if 
the votes for a slate of 5 candidates looked like this

A: 20
B: 18
C: 21
D:   3
E:   5

as opposed to

A: 32
B:   2
C: 28
D:   2
E:   3

We drew from both the STAR and the PHENIX bylaws in drafting the Spokesperson 
section. I will note that the PHENIX bylaws say absolutely nothing about 
voting procedures and runoffs, but we did manage to muddle along for past two 
decades. 

Best regards,

Bill


> On Oct 30, 2015, at 2:31 PM, Greene, Senta V 
> <senta.v.greene AT Vanderbilt.Edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi, John,
> 
> I have a question concerning clarification of this provision:
> 
> "If no candidate obtains this absolute majority, runoff rounds will be 
> conducted for the
> top vote-getters until one candidate obtains more than
> 50% of the votes cast, not counting abstentions."
> 
> Does the bylaws committee plan to specify how many of the top vote-getters 
> enter the runoff round?  Would it be the top two, or those getting above a 
> certain fraction of the vote, or some other method of selection?
> 
> Thanks,
> Vicki
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sphenix-ib-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov 
> [mailto:sphenix-ib-l-bounces AT lists.bnl.gov] On Behalf Of John Harris
> Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:54 PM
> To: sphenix-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> Subject: [Sphenix-ib-l] Spokesperson Definition and Election Process
> 
> Dear sPHENIX IB,
> 
> I would like to call to your attention the attached document defining the 
> Spokesperson, and the Nomination and Election Process that we propose to 
> follow for the first spokesperson election.
> This has been agreed upon and proposed by the Bylaws Committee. It has been 
> discussed in the Nomination Committee and we have agreement of both 
> committees to proceed with this for the first election. It will become the 
> Spokesperson section of the Bylaws, modulo any changes, only after full 
> discussion and endorsement of the Bylaws as a whole.
> 
> I would also like to let you know that for expediency the Nomination 
> Committee has commenced its nomination task assuming these definitions as a 
> guideline. I will call for a vote on adopting this as our process for the 
> first Spokesperson election after one week for IB consideration, questions 
> and any discussion in email. I expect to propose a secret electronic vote, 
> at the end of next week on Friday Nov. 6, to accept this with any resultant 
> changes for our first spokesperson nomination and election process.
> 
> I wish to reiterate that the Spokesperson section of the Bylaws will only 
> be approved as part of the Bylaws as a whole, when the full Bylaws have 
> been endorsed. That means that the Spokesperson section can still be 
> modified, if necessary, before the final Bylaws approval by the IB.
> 
> At this stage I solicit any questions or concerns from the IB on the 
> proposed process. I would like to reach an understanding of the process by 
> the IB, before calling for a vote of endorsement at the end of next week. 
> So I would appreciate if you please take a look.
> 
> I thank Bill Zajc and the Bylaws Committee for their quick response for 
> definition of the process, and Huan Huang and the Nomination Committee for 
> having started their work towards nominating a spokesperson.
> 
> Sincerely,
> John
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sphenix-ib-l mailing list
> Sphenix-ib-l AT lists.bnl.gov
> https://lists.bnl.gov/mailman/listinfo/sphenix-ib-l