[governance] Results of charter amendment vote
Danny Younger
dannyyounger at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 27 17:22:53 EDT 2009
Ian,
Thank you for your response. While I do not share your view on the propriety of actions taken, I will not be filing an appeal.
Thanks again for your explanation.
-- danny --
--- On Sun, 9/27/09, 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: Sunday, September 27, 2009, 4:09 PM
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list