[DeTomaso] Letter to Voting POCA Members

[laurieferrari at aol.com]

To all Voting POCA Members,
I feel the need to share that I am personally disturbed bythis recent POCA Election process.  Asthere was one position where two were running, Mike Drew and Mike Haney forProfiles Editor, I am not convinced the process was conducted properly and Iwould like to be sure the result represented the majority of votingmembers.  As a POCA member, I am askingfor a REVOTE and hope that others will second and agree to back up this requestas a motion!  I am writing this of my ownfree will and opinion and without the knowledge of either of those running for the Editorposition.
 
Reasons:
1 1.    The Newsletter that was issued prior to voting misprinted that Mike Drew was not intending to run for Editor, thusleading many to feel he was no longer interested in this position.  This was not true.
2  2. There was confusion with ballots, the first notlisting anyone running for Editor and then a second ballot was issued “On-line”which included the names of both running, Mike Haney and Mike Drew. The Board allowedthis second ballot to be printed and used, but then changed the date of whenthat ballot could be received.
33.     There was controversy regarding whether the Bylawsallowed for votes to be submitted by email as many members prefer thetechnologically current and expedited way of voting via the Internet. There isno reason to disallow this as by submitting with ones’ membership number thereis no way of duplicating votes.  Assomeone noted, the Bylaws do not actually disallow this method as Bylaws statevotes by “mail,” not specifically “snail mail.”
44. The Board announced it would be allowable for votes tobe presented electronically. 
55. Then approximately one week before the end of thevoting period, the Board changed its’ mind and said only snail mail votes wouldbe counted.  
66.   This last minute change in voting rules made itimpossible for many European voters to have their votes counted, and as ForeignMembers pay even greater dues, $90. Per year, than US members, it is unethicalto disallow their votes without allowances for special circumstances.  
77.   It is, in fact, destructive to the spirit and reputationof the Club to not count votes from ALL paying members.  That would mean an extension in time should havebeen allowed, as necessary, under the circumstances of all the confusion toensure a fair election. 
88.  At present it appears the outdatedBylaws are being interpreted too loosely and at the will by the Board. Thisopens the question of how ethical these decisions are.
99.  In good faith and fairness to everyone, THE ELECTIONSHOULD BE RE-HELD.  After the fact, theentire summary of results, votes submitted, votes received, should be openknowledge to the Membership and printed in the next Newsletter.

 1 10.   I am not sure the POCA voting membership is as keenlyaware of all these issues as I, however I have been a  Board Member and in thepast I had questions of controversial decisions regarding certain issues, i.e. how a tie washandled, how some ballots were not received across the Country in a timelymanner because of weather conditions, and so on… these experiences make mepersonally sensitive and aware of how our Membership’s wishes arehonored. The person who fairly wins the election, regardless of who, with no questionable decisions and changes in policy, should be theEditor of Profiles.
Thank you and appreciate your opinions,
Laurie


-------------- next part --------------
   To all Voting POCA Members,
   I feel the need to share that I am personally disturbed by this recent
   POCA Election process.  As there was one position where two were
   running, Mike Drew and Mike Haney for Profiles Editor, I am not
   convinced the process was conducted properly and I would like to be
   sure the result represented the majority of voting members.  As a POCA
   member, I am asking for a REVOTE and hope that others will second and
   agree to back up this request as a motion!  I am writing this of my own
   free will and opinion and without the knowledge of either of those
   running for the Editor position.

   Reasons:
   1 1.    The Newsletter that was issued prior to voting misprinted that
   Mike Drew was not intending to run for Editor, thus leading many to
   feel he was no longer interested in this position.  This was not true.
   2  2. There was confusion with ballots, the first not listing anyone
   running for Editor and then a second ballot was issued aOn-linea which
   included the names of both running, Mike Haney and Mike Drew. The Board
   allowed this second ballot to be printed and used, but then changed the
   date of when that ballot could be received.
   33.     There was controversy regarding whether the Bylaws allowed for
   votes to be submitted by email as many members prefer the
   technologically current and expedited way of voting via the Internet.
   There is no reason to disallow this as by submitting with onesa
   membership number there is no way of duplicating votes.  As someone
   noted, the Bylaws do not actually disallow this method as Bylaws state
   votes by amail,a not specifically asnail mail.a
   44. The Board announced it would be allowable for votes to be presented
   electronically.
   55. Then approximately one week before the end of the voting period,
   the Board changed itsa mind and said only snail mail votes would be
   counted.
   66.   This last minute change in voting rules made it impossible for
   many European voters to have their votes counted, and as Foreign
   Members pay even greater dues, $90. Per year, than US members, it is
   unethical to disallow their votes without allowances for special
   circumstances.
   77.   It is, in fact, destructive to the spirit and reputation of the
   Club to not count votes from ALL paying members.  That would mean an
   extension in time should have been allowed, as necessary, under the
   circumstances of all the confusion to ensure a fair election.
   88.  At present it appears the outdated Bylaws are being interpreted
   too loosely and at the will by the Board. This opens the question of
   how ethical these decisions are.
   99.  In good faith and fairness to everyone, THE ELECTION SHOULD BE
   RE-HELD.  After the fact, the entire summary of results, votes
   submitted, votes received, should be open knowledge to the Membership
   and printed in the next Newsletter.
    1 10.   I am not sure the POCA voting membership is as keenly aware of
   all these issues as I, however I have been a  Board Member and in the
   past I had questions of controversial decisions regarding certain
   issues, i.e. how a tie was handled, how some ballots were not received
   across the Country in a timely manner because of weather conditions,
   and so ona| these experiences make me personally sensitive and aware of
   how our Membershipas wishes are honored. The person who fairly wins the
   election, regardless of who, with no questionable decisions and changes
   in policy, should be the Editor of Profiles.
   Thank you and appreciate your opinions,
   Laurie