Usfa Calls Off Election

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Funny that the ElecCom also didn't take the Board to task for failing to adhere to a process the Board knew was already in place, by filling the ElecCom slots in time for the Committee to do its work.

[oso97]

Funny that the ElecCom also didn't take the Board to task for failing to adhere to a process the Board knew was already in place, by filling the ElecCom slots in time for the Committee to do its work.

Actually, the fault was the matter of the Executive Committee, not the Board. The ExCom was empowered to act and fill the remaining slots on the ElecCom by the Board.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

A fine distinction, but true. I tend to think of them as pretty much the same entity, actions wise, but that's not technically accurate.

Again, I don't have a favorite horse in this race. I tend to think choice is good in elections. I also find it curious that an entire slate was DQ'd on a Bylaws violation pointed out by the chief counsel, who, according to information provided elsewhere in this thread, was apparently was willing to eschew pointing out other Bylaw errors.

And I find it hard to believe the ElecComm went along with the DQ, knowing that there were other errors and omissions in play...AND copped quite the attitude in their letter bumping it upstairs.

The NomCom may have knocked themelves out picking new, fresh, vibrant candidates with zero ties to the Old Guard...but actions like we've seen so far in the election process look a lot like an institution playing games to protect the annointed slate.

[oso97]

A fine distinction, but true. I tend to think of them as pretty much the same entity, actions wise, but that's not technically accurate.

Its a common enough perception, although, its extraordinarily inaccurate, particularly in this last quad. Previous quads, perhaps not so much, but right now, there is extensive friction between the ExCom and the BOD. Not to mention the extensive internal friction of the ExCom and BOD, respectively. The way it SHOULD work is the BOD sets overall policy at its annual and special meetings, and the ExCom takes care of things that arise in the interim. The BOD can, should and has exercised its right to review (and potentially overrule) decisions made by the ExCom though.

Which body is the appropriate one to make this this decision is probably the ExCom. I anticipate that they will rule in favor of accepting the ballots - flaws in the process and all. And we'll have an election.

[jjefferies]

Again, I don't have a favorite horse in this race. I tend to think choice is good in elections. I also find it curious that an entire slate was DQ'd on a Bylaws violation pointed out by the chief counsel, who, according to information provided elsewhere in this thread, was apparently was willing to eschew pointing out other Bylaw errors.

Do correct me if I'm wrong here. But I "believe" the head counsel is a former president of the USFA and one of the more important long term members in the organization. Certainly he is one of the people whose names Michael Massik invoked when he wanted authority. Unfortunately I don't believe I've ever met the gentleman myself so I've no clue as to how he might view this entire matter. Given that he is a lawyer one might expect deference to the rules.

[oso97]

Do correct me if I'm wrong here. But I "believe" the head counsel is a former president of the USFA and one of the more important long term members in the organization. Certainly he is one of the people whose names Michael Massik invoked when he wanted authority. Unfortunately I don't believe I've ever met the gentleman myself so I've no clue as to how he might view this entire matter. Given that he is a lawyer one might expect deference to the rules.

He's also probably the best friend the petitioning slate has right now. Its his job to point out when mistakes are made in the process but its also his job NOT to point that out publicly and expose the organization to ... whatever.

[jjefferies]

He's also probably the best friend the petitioning slate has right now. Its his job to point out when mistakes are made in the process but its also his job NOT to point that out publicly and expose the organization to ... whatever.

That's an interesting set of assertions. Is this just bear pooh or do you actually mean something?
Inquiring minds and all that.

[oso97]

Well, for the latter part, uhmmm... in case you had no idea ... that is what the job of a general counsel IS. Point out mistakes internally that go against processes, and do things to avoid the organization avoid litigation. Then defend the organization against litigation.

Way far from bear pooh.

As to the first, well, again, he's the one who is pointing out mistakes that have been made - ON BOTH SIDES. There are those who would like nothing better than to flush the petitions down the drain. And he's a voice saying, with authority, no you can't do that, because these mistakes were made in the overall process.

Again, very far from bear pooh.

Now, do you have anything else besides ad hominem attacks?

[jjefferies]

... that is what the job of a general counsel IS. Point out mistakes internally that go against processes, and do things to avoid the organization avoid litigation. Then defend the organization against litigation.
:
As to the first, well, again, he's the one who is pointing out mistakes that have been made - ON BOTH SIDES.
:
Now, do you have anything else besides ad hominem attacks?

Didn't mean it as an attack. I just wanted to know what paths your mind was working down and whether you could add something other than what is generally known. (Remembering Pooh from "The Guild" and for unknown reasons Pooh Bear and Bear Pooh ... uh too many late nights fencing you see)

Agreed that is his job. But things are never as simple as appearances might seem. I'm remembering F.U.'s line in "House of Cards", "you may say that but I certainly never could" (or words to that effect). Just because that's his job may or may not mean much depending on the individual. And we've not gotten many details as to who is pointing out what.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

As to the first, well, again, he's the one who is pointing out mistakes that have been made - ON BOTH SIDES. .

Not to be a literalist about this--but we've seen references to Donald blowing the whistle on the arbitration timeline, with the subsequent DQ of the USFFC slate. Where is the corresponding written paperwork where he points the finger at the ElecComm for their timeline or other bylaw violation?

There are those who would like nothing better than to flush the petitions down the drain. And he's a voice saying, with authority, no you can't do that, because these mistakes were made in the overall process.

Maybe so, but we're not seeing it. And in fact, had the USFFC slate merely folded their tent and slunk off into the night, his word on the April 1st DQ would have been his total public appearance on the issue.

Do you have any paper trail showing the depth of his even-handedness? I'd love for it to be true, but for the moment, you seem to be stipulating facts not already in evidence.

[oso97]

Do you have any paper trail showing the depth of his even-handedness? I'd love for it to be true, but for the moment, you seem to be stipulating facts not already in evidence.

Donald is too good a lawyer to have a paper trail, for the most part .

[dcmdale]

Donald is too good a lawyer to have a paper trail, for the most part .

Who is Mr. Alperstein supposed to be representing here? I assume the USFA, the corporation. It is emphatically in the best interests of the corporation, where there is a disputed election, to have a meticulous paper trail showing compliance with applicable laws, bylaws, and procedures. That the by-laws were not followed and remediation needs to occur makes it incredibly important that the paper trail be in place proving even-handedness. It is part of being a good lawyer to know when to document (and when not to).

Whether those documents would, at this point, be publicly apparent might be a different story.

[oso97]

Who is Mr. Alperstein supposed to be representing here? I assume the USFA, the corporation. It is emphatically in the best interests of the corporation, where there is a disputed election, to have a meticulous paper trail showing compliance with applicable laws, bylaws, and procedures. That the by-laws were not followed and remediation needs to occur makes it incredibly important that the paper trail be in place proving even-handedness. It is part of being a good lawyer to know when to document (and when not to).

Whether those documents would, at this point, be publicly apparent might be a different story.

I guess I should have made that clear - a public paper trail .

[Mr Epee]

I guess I should have made that clear - a public paper trail .

Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you stop talking for a while.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

As to the first, well, again, he's the one who is pointing out mistakes that have been made - ON BOTH SIDES

I guess I should have made that clear - a public paper trail .

Well, I suppose it's possible that Mr. Alperstein is indeed striding the marbled halls of USFA Central like a vengeful Colossus, smiting all that err in Bylaw Adherence with his mighty Whacky-Whacker of Compliance.

But so far, we've only seen his fingerprints on the the April 1st USFFC deadline dust-up, so permit us some polite skepticism, for the time being.

[epeemike81]

Well, I suppose it's possible that Mr. Alperstein is indeed striding the marbled halls of USFA Central like a vengeful Colossus, smiting all that err in Bylaw Adherence with his mighty Whacky-Whacker of Compliance.

But so far, we've only seen his fingerprints on the the April 1st USFFC deadline dust-up, so permit us some polite skepticism, for the time being.

The statement coming out of the Election Committee, which acknowledges issues on both sides, was drawn up in closed session for the purpose of consultation with general counsel (surrounded by open sessions with discussions). I would say it's not only possible but likely that the advice he was giving behind closed doors was that there were errors made on both sides and the election committee would be well advised not to dismiss the petitions.

DISCLAIMER: I (obviously) have no knowledge of the proceedings in that closed session and am merely speculating.

-m

[lewis]

Lawyers are paid to give advice. Then the client makes a choice, then the lawyer is paid to make the client's choice work; even if it was not the one advised by the lawyer. Lawyers do not give guarantees and corporate lawyers generally get paid whether they are successful or not. Good lawyers never tell outsiders what they did or didn't do - this is generally revealed by the clients and if the client did not take the lawyer's original advice such information is interpreted not exactly verbatim.

Wish we actually had some real information -

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I would say it's not only possible but likely that the advice he was giving behind closed doors was that there were errors made on both sides and the election committee would be well advised not to dismiss the petitions.

And I'd suspect the same thing happened, as well. I just found it curious that the ElecComm chose to invoke the GC while initially disqualifying the USFCC, yet we never hear about his input in their subsequent letter.

[oso97]

I just found it curious [snip]

Why did you find it curious? What exactly would you consider 'full disclosure?'

[fencerX]

There's been not one, but two lawyers involved with the Election Committee.

That means the truth can and will never be known for sure