[governance] Results of charter amendment vote

Tue Sep 29 13:34:00 EDT 2009

If a jurisdiction wants to raise taxes, in numerous states they have a
state law to deal with that requires a certain level of turnout before
the tax becomes effective.

Let's imagine a hypothetical rule of this common class requires that
2/3 of voters participate for the tax to go into effect.  Of course,
such turnout requirements apply no matter what the breakdown of those
voters' votes may be, even if 99% to 1%.

As polls approach closing at 8pm, may the pollworkers at this tax
election extend polling hours in furtherance of obtaining a valid
election, and "not wasting time" or, frankly, any other reason?

Absolutely no way.  It's to the point of being absurd to suggest that
those running the election could extend the election time, FOR THIS
SPECIFIC TYPE OF ELECTION.

Only an independent judge could even theoretically make such a
decision, and if a judge even considered an emergency motion on this
issue, the judge would hold this to a very high standard of showing an
act of God like a blizzard or hurricane or something similar disrupted
the polls as a whole, or huge classes of voters, through no fault or
choice of their own.

Given that we have a 2/3 rule operating here much like minimum turnout
requirements for tax elections, I have a difficult time understanding
why Milton Mueller does "not have a problem" with the election
procedure, even though he voted against the amendment, and the
amendment is stated to have passed after the extension.

Does anyone see what the issue is here? Or do I need to post again
because I haven't been clear enough?

(FWIW, my desire simply "to be heard" and understood far exceeds my
desire to "win" some potential debate.  Perhaps I've missed the
countervailing principles or facts here, but I don't think I'm wrong
in pointing to this important issue of the special context that is
created when an election, like the charter amendment election,
triggers a rule regarding minimum turnout requirements for validity.
To ignore this issue as if it didn't exist would create more troubling
questions than the issue itself, so no matter what the outcome may be,
I hope there develops some communication, or process, for dealing with
it.  Being forced to deal with it pursuant to an appeal is not the
only posture in which this issues ought to be addressed and dealt
with.)

Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor

On 9/29/09, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I voted against the amendment, but do not have a problem with the procedure
> used.
> The real problem is that a high bar was set regarding the membership portion
> who have to vote. If a loose organization such as this attracts 200 people
> who call themselves "members" at point A and after two years 35% of them
> lose interest and stop participating, then no charter amendments would ever
> be possible. If the vote were a close one it would be different, of course.
> As it is, all that happened was that the vote extension allowed the will of
> an overwhelming majority to be executed.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Magaly Pazello [mailto:femlists at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:00 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams
> Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>
> Dear list,
> after a long time I am getting involved with IG issues again. I have been
> following up the discussions and all other process here in the list despite
> my silence.
>
> I would like to thanks the list coordinators for all the wok done regarding
> to the charter amendment as well the other lsit members who have spent time
> and dedication to make the voting posible. I think nw is time to look
> forward as the IGF is coming and there is much to do.
>
> I have voted during the regular voting period and all the people I have
> aproached have received the ballot in time and have voted during this
> period. But it sems do not be exactly point. Since the number of votes in
> favor of the charter amendment is very higher in relation to who is against,
> I think this disparity say much more about the decision of list members to
> adopt the new text than if all the rules was strictly followed or not. Also
> because we don't know if the 9 votes against the charter amendment were made
> within the regular voting period or during the extension period.
>
> I have a question, passing the 72 hours without a proper appeal to the
> voting process the charter amendment will be definetely adopted, right?
>
> Best,
>
> Magaly Pazello
>
>
>
> 2009/9/27 Jeffrey A. Williams
> <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com<mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>>
> Danny and all,
>
>  There is certainly more than reasonable evidance to suspect, but not
> necessarly prove that gaming of the process has occurred or may have
> occurred.  Simply extending the voting period alone justifies that
> suspicion.
>
>  So far the reason given for the extending of the voting period don't
> ring very true or reasonable to me, for what ever that's worth to others.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com<mailto:dannyyounger at yahoo.com>>
>>Sent: Sep 27, 2009 1:05 PM
>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter
>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
>>Subject: Re: [governance] Results of charter amendment vote
>>
>>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
>>
>>[...]
>
>

-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box #1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026
____________________________________________________________
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