Thank you kindly for your responses and clarifications.
There are still areas which concern me - I would greatly appreciate it if perhaps you can shed some light as to the discrepancies.
I agree here with Cindy, who writes:
This word transparency that people keep throwing around does not exist in our Joomla world. If things were transparent, there would be public records of nominations and votes like any other quasi public corporation. This information is specifically excluded from the meeting minutes. Why?
Your response troubles me, because not only do you acknowledge the issue, but instead of conceding, you berate the person asking a very valid question.
The OSM president admits that nominees names are not even made public for the last 3 years!!!
Should we not be curious as to who is putting themselves forward to represent OUR interests?
Why should nominees and how many votes they get be public record? To satisfy your curiosity?
I don't know how future election for Directors will look, but OSM is not a city council, and they don't hold populist elections.
What an absurd response. Is this the opinion community you serve? Exactly what steps have been taken to find out what the OSM community wants?
Has the current OSM Board even bothered to consider that YES, many of us may want to know exactly who has been nominated, and in particular which nominees have received popular support from community stakeholder, yet were turned down by and incumbent board with a stranglehold on board positions.
In my view, Cindy expresses a very legitimate concern - one that I share.
My question is why, other than for reasons of a 'self-indulgent' board, is this information kept so secretive? How does one consider that such a 'secretive' approach, combined a back-handed remark to and honest and bona fide request for transparency, can in anyway help the community at large continue to have trust in the integrity of OSM elections moving forward?
We quite simply can't. Especially with such answers.
And if there are no good answers - then I would politely and respectfully suggest that we deal with shortcoming head-on, move towards full-transparency, and not dither around any longer with very serious concerns when they pertain to the integrity of elections of the OSM board.
It's not rocket science that OSM Directors are not currently operating within the 'intent and spirit' of its by-laws - so let's fix that - it's the duty of directors to do so. If you take the seat, you take on that responsibility. If you can't handle the responsibility, then please don't take on a seat on the board when there are others willing to serve who will open up OSM to the community stakeholders.
I'm further concerned by your statements as they relate to high turnover and so many vacant seats.
Why on earth is it that are there good candidates, whom many have expressed support for, being prevented from serving on the OSM Board right now?
It's regrettable that these matters overshadow all the good that so many hardworking and well meaning volunteers contribute as Directors - but for all intents and purposes, OSM right now is a very closed, tightly held, opaque group of Directors who seemingly see having popular persons who would serve as Directors as an mere irritation.
Jacques, what clarifications can you provide that will demonstrate that I am 'dead wrong'?
(I hope I am!!!)