Election Results?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Perhaps there was a wish not to "embarrass" the losing candidates any more than losing already did. To those involved it might have smacked of nose-rubbing.

But if so it was a short-sighted perspective. One of the main complaints about the USFA has always been the institutional lack of transparency, and this just looked like no one had learned any lessons...

Plus, the vote totals were hardly embarrassing (except with regards to overall turnout). 800 to 600 is certainly respectable.

-m

[Redblade]

Is it true that one of the candidates received a total of 666 votes, a number that eerily matched the one printed on his head?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Perhaps there was a wish not to "embarrass" the losing candidates any more than losing already did.

If memory serves, wasn't the election to be held under Robert's Rules of Order?

As mfp noted:

Roberts Rules
The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side.

[ysbadadden]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

If memory serves, wasn't the election to be held under Robert's Rules of Order?

As mfp noted:Quote:
Roberts Rules
The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side.

So maybe it will be in the minutes, but whoever was in charge decided not to announce it at the meeting? Not encouraging. Serious question: how do we get through to these people? How do we communicate with them -- given all the activity and excitement, how busy they are, and so on ...?

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by ysbadadden

So maybe it will be in the minutes, but whoever was in charge decided not to announce it at the meeting? Not encouraging. Serious question: how do we get through to these people? How do we communicate with them -- given all the activity and excitement, how busy they are, and so on ...?

In the membership/congress meeting it was announced that the NC slate won the election and the new officers were introduced. The next day Geri Buamgart, Chair of the Election Committee, read to the BOD and guests the tally numbers and results of the election. They would now be included in the minutes of the BOD. It is not a secret, I just didn't write down the numbers, perhaps Brad will be posting them.
MD Stasinos

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Mark:

KD5MDK, who seems to generally know what he's talking about, reported hearing at the meeting that Gerrie Baumgart had announced the candidates had agreed not to make the vote counts public.

Was this originally the case? And if so, please explain to the unwashed masses here at "that website" the rationale for withholding the vote counts.

[KD5MDK]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

If memory serves, wasn't the election to be held under Robert's Rules of Order?

As mfp noted:

Quote:
Roberts Rules
The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side.

The USFA has long operated under informal practices that are usually "good enough" but often in ignorance or contradiction to what is written down.

For example, some Sections elect their representatives to the Board of Directors for 2 year terms, despite the National Bylaws specifying that they are to be elected annually. Does this hurt anyone? I don't really think so. Should one or the other be modified so they are in compliance? Yes, but it isn't a critically urgent issue in the way that new accounting controls are. \

Likewise, the actual use of Robert's Rules in Board meetings and other areas is practically negligible. All I know I got from the Dummies Guide and I still can tell it's more in the breach than the observance. However, the Board is generally composed of positively minded individuals working to come to solutions, so the fact that they're always tabling motions instead of postponing them, etc, hasn't caused any trouble yet. Does this need to improve? I think it should, and I think it will.

As a final example, I'll go the other way, something we do comply with but don't document: The "analysis" of the USFA Bylaws says that it doesn't look like there's adequate Athlete representation on the Board, Committees, etc. As a matter of fact, there is at least 20% Athlete participation in all committees, etc, if you can ever find their memberships. It's just not something we've been good about writing down. But it is out there and happening.

I think things will change for the better in the USFA over the next four years, and I think that change will come as fast as we can handle it. But I think it's important not to overstate how bad things are, or underestimate how many need improving.

[mdstasinos]

Originally Posted by Capt. Slo-mo

Mark:

KD5MDK, who seems to generally know what he's talking about, reported hearing at the meeting that Gerrie Baumgart had announced the candidates had agreed not to make the vote counts public.

Was this originally the case? And if so, please explain to the unwashed masses here at "that website" the rationale for withholding the vote counts.

Yes, this was originally done. The discussion was between Geri Baumgart, Tracy Hurley and Kalle Weeks. It was agreed upon that the winners would be announced without the numbers because of the low turn out and what people might read into the numbers. This was again, agreed upon by the three at the conclusion of the ballet count. Now, because it was leaked out within a couple of hours and the discussion began, it was decided at the BOD meeting by Geri Baumgart that the numbers would be shared with the BOD and guests and as such I believe that they are now part of the record of the minutes of the board meeting.
MD Stasinos

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

Yes, this was originally done. The discussion was between Geri Baumgart, Tracy Hurley and Kalle Weeks. It was agreed upon that the winners would be announced without the numbers because of the low turn out and what people might read into the numbers.

Mark:

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't want to make a Federal case out of this, because there are tons more pressing issues to deal with.

But I'm baffled that Kalle didn't think this through in the light of the "more open, more transparent USFA" language that has been bandied about. "What people might read into the numbers?" To me that is the height of institutional arrogance to decide we're not capable of drawing our own conclusions, and that, somehow, it's in our own best interests if the election tabulations are kept secret.

If we can't trust this administration to be up front with information this benign that costs you nothing, how do you expect us to believe you'll be forthcoming when the information might hurt?

This is not a good start for the incoming administration. Actions sometimes DO speak louder than words.

[mdstasinos]

[quote=Capt. Slo-mo;706834]Mark:

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't want to make a Federal case out of this, because there are tons more pressing issues to deal with.

But I'm baffled that Kalle didn't think this through in the light of the "more open, more transparent USFA" language that has been bandied about. "What people might read into the numbers?" To me that is the height of institutional arrogance to decide we're not capable of drawing our own conclusions, and that, somehow, it's in our own best interests if the election tabulations are kept secret.

If we can't trust this administration to be up front with information this benign that costs you nothing, how do you expect us to believe you'll be forthcoming when the information might hurt? This is not a good start for the incoming administration. Actions sometimes Do speak louder than words.[quote]

I am not disagreeing with you but this was the recommendation of the Election Committee Chair, I was not present for the discussion so I am not privy to the reasons for this course of action to withhold the numbers, but it was apparently acceptable for both Tracy and Kalle. I do not think this is a act of hiding the numbers for the fact that two days after that recommendation from the Election Committee Chair, she reversed that decision and the numbers were added to the record of the board meeting and announced publicly there. I apologize for not recording the numbers exactly but the numbers I quoted in the threads are very close to the count.
I did it for the fact at that time it had become a public record. The entire elected slate are committed in opening communication, discussion, passing to the fencing public information and record for the good of the Association.
Let us take office and hit the ground running before you judge us. Truly, the results of the election are important, the numbers are secondary but important too.
Mark D. Stasinos

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

Let us take office and hit the ground running before you judge us. Truly, the results of the election are important, the numbers are secondary but important too.
Mark D. Stasinos

The numbers aren't the results?

That's an amazing statement.

There simply isn't a good reason for not making the results public.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by mdstasinos

[I was not present for the discussion so I am not privy to the reasons for this course of action to withhold the numbers, but it was apparently acceptable for both Tracy and Kalle.

That it was apparently acceptable to ever even consider (or not object to) withholding the numbers is what people are justifiably concerned about and questioning.

First 100 days?

Cripes.

How about the first 100 minutes?

It boggles the mind that this was apparently one of the very first actions of an incoming president whose slate campaigned on inclusiveness, transparency and openness, etc, etc.

[Inquartata]

And agreed to by the candidate who billed herself as the "outsider", the "fresh alternative". Who promised to be "different".

But I'm sure you've an excuse for that ready to hand.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Apparently the "Information Hoarding Virus" (IHV) is harder to eradicate than was once thought, even after a nearly complete blood transfusion of the body politik.

[fluidfencer]

Please, under the circumstances, get together with the other officers and be absolutely clear about the message you want to present to the USFA members. You won't get many chances to prove that you intend to work in an open and fair way. I can consider this first issue (which is not nearly as small an issue as you think it is) to be a mulligan of sorts (using a golf term), but people are already anxious and skeptical, even if they voted for you. There might be other issues to address, but restoring trust is one of the biggest.



[quote=mdstasinos;706860][quote=Capt. Slo-mo;706834]Mark:

Thanks for the confirmation. I don't want to make a Federal case out of this, because there are tons more pressing issues to deal with.

But I'm baffled that Kalle didn't think this through in the light of the "more open, more transparent USFA" language that has been bandied about. "What people might read into the numbers?" To me that is the height of institutional arrogance to decide we're not capable of drawing our own conclusions, and that, somehow, it's in our own best interests if the election tabulations are kept secret.

If we can't trust this administration to be up front with information this benign that costs you nothing, how do you expect us to believe you'll be forthcoming when the information might hurt? This is not a good start for the incoming administration. Actions sometimes Do speak louder than words.

I am not disagreeing with you but this was the recommendation of the Election Committee Chair, I was not present for the discussion so I am not privy to the reasons for this course of action to withhold the numbers, but it was apparently acceptable for both Tracy and Kalle. I do not think this is a act of hiding the numbers for the fact that two days after that recommendation from the Election Committee Chair, she reversed that decision and the numbers were added to the record of the board meeting and announced publicly there. I apologize for not recording the numbers exactly but the numbers I quoted in the threads are very close to the count.
I did it for the fact at that time it had become a public record. The entire elected slate are committed in opening communication, discussion, passing to the fencing public information and record for the good of the Association.
Let us take office and hit the ground running before you judge us. Truly, the results of the election are important, the numbers are secondary but important too.
Mark D. Stasinos

[tchwojko]

The only mitigation I can think of, is if "what people might read into the numbers" refers to USOC people.

If "people" refers to USFA membership, then that's just wrong. You don't fix ignorance by feeding it.