Trade Committee

[jongaskins]

The main reason that I suggested that is because although nothing may be stated, you may have some owners who got vetoed that would not trade with the GM who vetoed it and so forth and so on. I'm the new guy of course and you guys know each other best. Just trying to assist.

[Colby]

Good idea Jon, but as Ben mentioned, thus far, we generally prefer transparency in the game.

[Canada8999]

I would certainly be willing to serve on the TC, but already serving on the RC (which I prefer) perhaps someone else should have the opportunity (separation of powers between Legislative and Judicial  :USA: ).

[jongaskins]

Speaking of which. Please let me know if I can help as well.

[lp815]

I would certainly be willing to serve on the TC, but already serving on the RC (which I prefer) perhaps someone else should have the opportunity (separation of powers between Legislative and Judicial  :USA: ).

I'll agree to this also.  I would enjoy being on the TC, but we should keep the two branches separate.  However, it is my belief that we have yet to establish 5 trusted members to the TC, if we are to look for members outside the RC.  Some are active and on the right track though.  So I propose that the RC vote on TC members.  A majority vote (4) will be required to allow a member to be a part of the TC.  Failure to uphold proper judgement while being on the TC may result in the RC calling for a vote of termination from the TC, or, if bad enough, the league. 

And I'll agree with you, Ben, on the fact of using a league wide vote only as a last resort.  But it is best to include it, we do not want anyone that is not a member of the RC or TC to feel cheated by not having a say in such matters at any point during the process.

[Canada8999]

I'll agree to this also.  I would enjoy being on the TC, but we should keep the two branches separate.  However, it is my belief that we have yet to establish 5 trusted members to the TC, if we are to look for members outside the RC.  Some are active and on the right track though.  So I propose that the RC vote on TC members.  A majority vote (4) will be required to allow a member to be a part of the TC.  Failure to uphold proper judgement while being on the TC may result in the RC calling for a vote of termination from the TC, or, if bad enough, the league.

Maybe a good option would be to have the owners nominated by Colby serve during this off-season, and then before next season starts we'll elect the TC (which must consist of non RC owners).  Then we'll have a much better sample to work from when electing owners.

[lp815]

Maybe a good option would be to have the owners nominated by Colby serve during this off-season, and then before next season starts we'll elect the TC (which must consist of non RC owners).  Then we'll have a much better sample to work from when electing owners.

My man Ben, meeting halfway.  :koolaid:  I'll agree with this proposal.

[Colby]

As noted in the transactions forum, the RC will serve as the TC for the remainder of the off-season.  We will nominate (per their acceptance) other GMs to be on the TC in January.

[Colby]

Okay, so who will be on the TC for 2010?

[lp815]

Okay, so who will be on the TC for 2010?

Maybe we should create a topic for each member to submit their name to be nominated?  I don't if a member would like being nominated for a job he might not want to do.  :koolaid: