dilemma

[Kali]

I have been involved in a 6 year long fight to bring democracy back to a small membership owned organization. I am totally burned out. Last year I agreed to be on the election committee for this organization because while just the fact that they would let me be on it is huge progress, the actual procedures are still very suspect. None of my concerns have been addressed and the staff involvement which was the biggest issue is the same if not worse. I had planned to resign in a public statement during a board meeting months ago, but due to other circumstances didn't make several meetings. The other two committee members seem like nice people but they seem to have no clue as to the history, and I am pretty sure one was recruited just to help institute an electronic voting procedure. Something that makes me very paranoid since it appears the only other person connected to the website is the very staff person who tried to influence several previous elections in VERY unprofessional and unethical ways.

Now, as a member of this committee I have been asked to participate in counting ballots, another huge issue I had hoped to help change. I really don't want my name associated with what I am pretty sure will be a deceitful outcome. On the other hand I have to wonder if I could possible observe something and "blow a whistle" on it? What I suspect is going to happen is there will not be a quorum of votes and there will be false claims about the numbers. This seems to be especially likely since the organization has instituted an electronic e-mail voting system for those who choose to use it.

With no competition for the elected positions (4 candidates for 4 positions) and very little publicity or effort to engage the membership I highly doubt there is going to be the legal turnout needed. There hasn't been in than past two elections, although they lied about the one last year and then hid the ballots. They were a few short the year before and violated the Corporation Commission's regulations by accepting the vote anyway.

Part of this whole fight relates back to actions in the 90's where the Board made illegal changes to the Bylaws using the same illegal voting actions. So while the current and last elections are not that big of a deal, it is the PROCESS that is my main concern.

Should I attend the ballot count or resign at the last minute?

[Vincardog]

1. Why not attend the ballot count and IF and WHEN you see improprieties RESIGN in PROTEST

[roody]

3. ---what he said---

[Kali]

5. I don't think that is actually where the cheating would happen,

although there is potential due to the way the ballots are printed.

the main issue is a particular staff person that has special knowledge of the membership, not only does he know who votes but he is so "indispensable" that he is the only one qualified to determine if a voter is actually a member when that question comes up. He actually has the skills and insider knowledge to manipulate the mailings.

I am not accusing him of doing so, but it would be a simple matter for him to accomplish at a time when there might be more controversy. Because he as done so in the past - he has used his insider knowledge to do select mailings in a previous election.

And now on top of it all is this electronic system that I have no expertise in whatsoever. All he has to do is input info for "voters" who don't ever vote. Without some kind of actual proof it is kind of hard for me to accuse anybody of doing any of this and even I don't think it goes on during a "normal" election - I had hoped to improve the system in order to prevent it from happening in the future.

[Vincardog]

6. Demand that he produce a full list of qualified voters BEFORE the election. Publish it and ask for

comments from the members. Do this before any mailings go out. NOBODY is the only one qualified to determine if a voter is a member.

[Kali]

7. ballots already went out but you have given me a good idea

I have been trying to approach this from the obviously sensible perspective that the membership data MUST be comprehensible to anybody - in case something should happen to the membership director. That is just common sense, NOBODY in any organization should be the only person capable of doing their particular job. Substitutes are always needed!

He needs to hand over the list and be gone away from the ballot count. For one thing he needs to not see who and how members vote as he apparently has a remarkable memory and that kind of info could be so useful in a more contentious election.

then we need to work on a ballot system that either does not allow "counters" to see who votes for who, or an open system that lets EVERYONE see how everyone votes (like would happen in an actual in-person meeting)

[sui generis]

2. how many people are voting?

if you're just voting for bylaws in a small organization such as a co-op, then by all means sign your votes.

I would attend the ballot count, but it really seems way overblown. Are you voting on millions of dollars of CapEx? Open vote is probably the most "transparent" for a small organization. Recreating bicameral legislature - kind of overkill.

[Kali]

4. that is one of the questions!

This is for elected positions on the Board.

Back before I got involved, the board apparently changed the bylaws to go from a majority elected by the membership to a majority of appointed positions and then proceeded to self appoint each other and their buddies for YEARS, hire a horrible manager that forced many good volunteers out of the organization and brought in loads of passive ass-kissers to reinforce their power and positions. They did this illegally during a supposed "annual meeting" one year that nobody remembers or attended, obviously with no quorum - during that time there were elections being decided with as few as 10 votes out of a membership of several thousand. Yet the State regulations say there is a 10% required quorum.

Enough people got stirred up that they were forced to change the bylaws back to at least have equal numbers of elected and appointed positions. Over time and due to bylaw-mandated term limits, some more normal people got in. One of the problems is too many of them are associated with other non-profits as opposed to a democratic type of membership owned organization so while they are somewhat liberal politically, they seem to have NO CLUE about DEMOCRACY!