President (Tie to be broken by provisional ballots)*
- Clayton (51 votes)
- Diener (51 votes)
- Hockensmith (81 votes)*
2nd Vice President
- Dunn (60 votes)*
- Klein (40 votes)
Secretary
- Neibrief (78 votes)*
Treasurer
- Hartsock (82 votes)*
3 Year Director
- Dudney (68 votes)*
- Uchin (66 votes)*
- Maloff (49 votes)
2 Year Director (To be decided by provisional ballots)*
- McLellan (53 votes)
- Rieffel (47 votes)
1 Year Director
- Shimura (80 votes)*
There are evidently 8 provisional ballots that were cast that will determine the President and the 2 Year Director positions. However, those that cast provisional ballots must prove their eligibility by providing receipts of payment this year before February. I would tend to think that reasoning is backwards - DCCA should have to prove that someone is NOT a member. But I guess it's difficult to prove a negative, ergo the reasoning behind this onus on the voter to prove eligibility. Sort of like requiring individuals to provide a drivers license or other form of "official" ID to vote in local, state and federal elections. Something that DC does NOT require, since it's basically considered a poll tax by many and a way to exclude eligible voters who many not be sophisticated enough to prove eligibility, or those that are easily intimated into not voting.
I would hope that DCCA's membership list and accounting system is such that they would know who has given them money and for what. This isn't a criticism of Treasurer Nancy Hartsock (I'm treasurer of the ANC and Q Street, so I know how challenging a job it is), but rather this can be a learning experience for all of us about how to perfect the organization's rules and operating procedures to avoid similar problems in the future.
I also am not aware of how a tie will be broken if there is still a tie after the provisional ballots are counted, if any are. At this point, since both Robin Diener and Ron Clayton are board members anyway, they could simply pledge to work amicably together and flip a coin. I think that still happens, including last year in Goodridge, MN. That would work for me!
2 comments:
Jack,
Ron's board membership ended on election night. (The seat he was appointed to last month as a board member was for a term coming to an end with this election. Robin holds a seat whose term did not end with this election and which she consequently retains, not having resigned from it as Susan Dunn did with her seat in order to allow it to be open for the election. (This is the seat Haru holds.) Robin's current seat would be filled only if/when she resignes it. (I'd assume she'd resign it if she wins the presidency.)
As things stand, Robin is still on the board, bur Ron is not. Robin can vote on a solution (but of course shouldn't, because of the apparent advantage she has ...) but Ron can't.
Yes, this is a strange and interesting situation, owing to in my opinion very very badly written bylaws. I would hope the DCCA's first action after all this would be to get a professional to help them re-write the bylaws in ways that are consistent with other organizations' bylaws (and, of course, consistent with the DCCA's Articles of Incorporation (from early 1980s and Constituion (from 1922).
I think the coin flip you're referring to would be if Robin "secretly" agreed to give Ron her current board seat if he agreed to give her the presidency on the basis of a coin flip (or vice versa.) That is of course, not very legit or ethical, given that this was a members' meeting that they were elected at and it shouldn't be the board, including Robin or Ron, deciding who gets which seat. The members get to decide this. And they have. The votes just aren't being counted. As you say, there is absolutely no reason that the onus should be being put on the members to correct what is without doubt an error on the part of the DCCA. Many members who received regular ballots at the meeting on Monday were able to do so based on their word that they had paid. (This included a couple of candidates running for the board.) There is absolutely no reason why the same "trust" shouldn't be afforded to all members, especially those eight members assigned provisional ballots who signed affidavits saying they'd paid in 2008.
So, like I said, the members have voted, and it should be their votes deciding who sits in which seat. There should be no behind the scenes "trading of seats" going on.
Post a Comment