[This motion was made by Kynn Bartlett and seconded by Leanne Phillips
on 26 September 1998.  The motion passed on 26 September 1998.]

BACKGROUND

The Governing Board is considering the issues of the next election,
scheduled to be held in February 1999.  The first Guild election
was held in February 1998; prior to that, vacancies on the Board --
from terms expiring after 3 years or from mid-term resignations --
were filled by a vote of the Governing Board.

The bylaws specify that in order to have a valid election, at least
10% of the voting population of the Guild must cast their votes.  At
the time of the last election, there were approximately 880 "Plus"
members eligible to vote.  58 votes were cast, however, which meant
that the 1998 election failed to achieve quorum.

In the absense of a valid member vote, the Governing Board appointed
one former candidate to the Board, and re-appointed the incumbent
Board member who was up for re-election.

The failure of the membership to achieve quorum when voting for the
Board members has cast serious doubts on the future of membership
elections.

ARGUMENTS FOR ELECTIONS

The primary argument for elections is obvious -- it gives the members
a voice in deciding who makes the decisions for the Guild, including
how their dues moneys are spent.

Elections can bring a diversity of opinion to the Governing Board,
making the Board even more directly representative of the membership
of the Guild.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST ELECTIONS

Elections are time consuming, difficult to run, expend Guild volunteer
resources that are already taxed, and produce nothing.  The failure
of the 1998 vote sends a clear signal:  Nearly 95% of the Guild's
voting membership does not care about voting.  The use of Guild
resources and effort for a meaningless vote is not justifiable.

Members of the Governing Board must work together for the good of the
Guild; cooperation and compatability with the other Board members are
essential qualities.  The GB members have to work with whomever is
elected -- and the general membership does not -- and the Board may be
more qualified to judge who would be a valuable addition to the GB.

Membership elections turn a very important task -- deciding what is
best for HTML Writers Guild, Inc. -- into a personality contest.  It
may not be in the best interests of the corporation for the Board to
be chosen based on a popular vote.

Public election debates and voting may discourage some potentially
valuable Board members from seeking office, due to the scrutiny of a
personality-based vote.  This may result in a fewer qualified 
candidates willing to present themselves, affecting the overall quality
of the Board.

PROPOSAL

In order to gauge if there is any interest in elections among the voting
membership, the Guild will hold a pre-election survey ("meta-vote".  This survey will
be announced via hwg-news, hwg-announce, and the Guild's website.  Voting
will take place over the course of one week, the same as the length of
the election voting period.

The voting page will contain the text of this motion, including the
arguments for and against membership elections, and a form with the
following question:

     Should the Guild continue to elect Governing Board members by
     a popular vote of the membership?
     ( ) Yes
     ( ) No

This form should only be accessible to voting (Full) members, who would
use their Guild membership numbers/passwords to access the page.

If a majority of voting members vote 'Yes', then the election in 1999
will be determined by a membership vote.  If the members vote 'No',
then the Governing Board will vote on the appointments/reappointments
of expiring seats.

If less than 10% of the membership vote in the meta-vote, then quorum will
not be achieved.  Due to lack of member interest in the elections, the
open/expiring seats will be filled by the Governing Board in such a
situation.