[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

[Ian Peter]

Danny,

Often in my life I have delayed the start of a meeting because a quorum was
not present, or in order to get a more satisfactory turnout. And indeed I
have noticed that this is common practice. The action here is much the same,
isn't it? 

Often during my time as an IGC coordinator we have extended the period for
feedback on a document in order to get more input. My predecessors have done
the same. This helps to get more input and involvement.

And during this voting process we sent out several reminders to people who
had not voted, reminded people many times on list to vote. Yes, we were
trying to gain a quorum so that the members views were explicitly known and
so that as many people as possible would participate.

All of these could be construed to be "gaming the process" if you like. And
all of these are common in an organisation which seeks to involve its
members.

Indeed, I would think that in a case like this the proper course of action
for the co-coordinators was to seek to get as many members as possible to
vote, and to work towards getting up the numbers necessary to constitute a
quorum. I do not believe any of our actions were improper, and as others
have pointed out our actions were designed to get a greater level of
participation rather than skew the vote in either direction.

I hope that explains our actions. I think as co coordinators it was proper
for us to try and avoid a null vote, whatever our personal opinions on the
amendments were and irrespective of whether there were 90% for or 90%
against.

Ian 




On 28/09/09 4:05 AM, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Ian,
> 
> Thank you for the clarification.  Please be advised that I am considering the
> filing of an appeal owing to the likelihood of procedural irregularities, and
> would appreciate a few answers to help guide my ultimate decision.
> 
> One gets the impression from your remarks that those that managed the
> amendment vote process were fully aware that the amendment had failed to pass
> (owing to a failure to meet the 2/3 threshold requirement) as of the
> pre-established cut-off date for the voting; these managers then proceeded to
> put forth a series of justifications to extend the vote in order to obtain the
> particular outcome that they themselves preferred.
> 
> Is this impression substantially correct?  If so, in my view such actions
> constitute an improper gaming of the process.
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 9/26/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>> Date: Saturday, September 26, 2009, 4:26 PM
>> Hi Danny,
>> 
>> Anwering yours and other questions -
>> 
>> The attached report gives you all the figures you need I
>> think on voting
>> numbers and how the 2/3 was determined.
>> 
>> And as regards the questions raised about privacy and a
>> secret ballot - the
>> coordinators were aware of a progressive total of number of
>> votes received
>> from time to time. We were never aware of which way any
>> individual voted.
>> The only person who would have that information is the
>> returning officer.
>> 
>> The decision to extend the deadline was made because of a
>> few factors - and
>> indeed was discussed between coordinators and returning
>> officer before the
>> ballots were even distributed because of a delay
>> experienced earlier on. The
>> first reason that led us to believe we should extend was
>> that the initial
>> circulation of the ballots was delayed a couple of days
>> because of a
>> corporate spam trap, thus shortening the period - the
>> second reason which
>> came up later was the clash with the round of Geneva
>> activities and
>> consultations which may have distracted people from
>> voting.
>> 
>> That being said, I cannot tell you with certainty what the
>> position of
>> voting was at the time the extension was announced, but
>> will concede that
>> the appropriate number of votes cast at that stage may not
>> have reached the
>> 2/3 - depending on how it is interpreted. But I don't see
>> anything improper
>> in an extension to ensure that more members have the chance
>> to participate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 26/09/09 9:29 PM, "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Ian,
>>> 
>>> The Charter tells us that a charter amendment must be
>> approved by no less than
>>> two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the IGC.
>>> 
>>> To put to rest any concerns that we might have, would
>> you might be good enough
>>> to tell us 
>>> (1)  the total number of IGC members
>>> (2)  how many votes were cast in the affirmative
>> and how many in the negative
>>> on the day that the coordinators decided to extend the
>> election.
>>> 
>>> One would hate to think that the election process was
>> gamed through the
>>> extension of voting so that the 2/3 threshhold could
>> be met.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>> Subject: [governance] Results of charter amendment
>> vote
>>>> To: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'"
>> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Cc: "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Friday, September 25, 2009, 4:21 PM
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Results of charter amendment vote
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> As co coordinators we have pleasure
>>>> in declaring the  proposed charter amendment
>> adopted. A
>>>> total of 96 members voted, with over 90% in favour
>> of the
>>>> amendment (87 votes for, 9 against). As the number
>> of
>>>> positive votes also exceeded the required 2/3 of
>> members of
>>>> IGC for amending the charter, we have no
>> hesitation in
>>>> declaring the motion carried.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> A full report on the decision is attached. It
>> contains a
>>>> description of the process followed and some
>> recommendations
>>>> and suggestions to clarify various matters which
>> emerged
>>>> during the process.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The decision is now open to appeal for 72 hours.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Our thanks again to Dr Derrick Cogburn for his
>> assistance
>>>> and expert involvement in conducting this ballot.
>> Also to
>>>> those who proposed this amendment, and to everyone
>> who voted
>>>> and helped to make this worthwhile change
>> possible.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Ian Peter and Ginger Paque, Co coordinators
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the
>> list:
>>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> 
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the
>> list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance