[DeTomaso] Letter to Voting POCA Members
michael at michaelshortt.com
michael at michaelshortt.com
Mon Jan 12 15:29:51 EST 2015
Not that my opinion matters, fairness or the appearance of it is paramount
to maintain
the integrity of any organization ( see the vast failures in Wash DC since
2008 to get a clear understanding).
Personally I don't know why a newsletter editor is an elected position,
seems odd.
Can't think of a single other group that does so.
Michael
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Brent Stewart via DeTomaso <
detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
> Laurie,
> I too feel this whole process was handled poorly. I have personal
> opinions about the position of Profiles Editor, but that doesn't matter
> - what matters is that there is that we have a fair process to the
> outcome, and I believe that was not achieved.
> I formally support the idea of a re-vote.
> brent
> On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:53 AM, Lauri Ferrari via DeTomaso
> <detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
> DeTomaso mailing list
> [1]DeTomaso at poca.com
> [2]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.)
> use the links above.
>
> References
>
> 1. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
> 2. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
>
> DeTomaso mailing list
> DeTomaso at poca.com
> http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
>
> To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe, etc.) use
> the links above.
>
>
--
Michael L. Shortt
Savannah, Georgia
www.michaelshortt.com
michael at michaelshortt.com
912-232-9390
This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. Please reply to the sender that you
have received this message in error, then delete it. Thank you
-------------- next part --------------
Not that my opinion matters, fairness or the appearance of it is
paramount to maintain
the integrity of any organization ( see the vast failures in Wash DC
since 2008 to get a clear understanding).
Personally I don't know why a newsletter editor is an elected position,
seems odd.
Can't think of a single other group that does so.
Michael
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Brent Stewart via DeTomaso
<[1]detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
A A Laurie,
A A I too feel this whole process was handled poorly.A I have
personal
A A opinions about the position of Profiles Editor, but that
doesn't matter
A A - what matters is that there is that we have a fair process to
the
A A outcome, and I believe that was not achieved.
A A I formally support the idea of a re-vote.
A A brent
A A On Monday, January 12, 2015 11:53 AM, Lauri Ferrari via
DeTomaso
A A <[2]detomaso at poca.com> wrote:
A A A To all Voting POCA Members,
A A A I feel the need to share that I am personally disturbed by this
A A recent
A A A POCA Election process.A As there was one position where two
were
A A A running, Mike Drew and Mike Haney for Profiles Editor, I am not
A A A convinced the process was conducted properly and I would like
to be
A A A sure the result represented the majority of voting members.A
As a
A A POCA
A A A member, I am asking for a REVOTE and hope that others will
second and
A A A agree to back up this request as a motion!A I am writing this
of my
A A own
A A A free will and opinion and without the knowledge of either of
those
A A A running for the Editor position.
A A A Reasons:
A A A 1 1.A A The Newsletter that was issued prior to voting
misprinted
A A that
A A A Mike Drew was not intending to run for Editor, thus leading
many to
A A A feel he was no longer interested in this position.A This was
not
A A true.
A A A 2A 2. There was confusion with ballots, the first not listing
anyone
A A A running for Editor and then a second ballot was issued
aOn-linea
A A which
A A A included the names of both running, Mike Haney and Mike Drew.
The
A A Board
A A A allowed this second ballot to be printed and used, but then
changed
A A the
A A A date of when that ballot could be received.
A A A 33.A A There was controversy regarding whether the Bylaws
allowed for
A A A votes to be submitted by email as many members prefer the
A A A technologically current and expedited way of voting via the
Internet.
A A A There is no reason to disallow this as by submitting with onesa
A A A membership number there is no way of duplicating votes.A As
someone
A A A noted, the Bylaws do not actually disallow this method as
Bylaws
A A state
A A A votes by amail,a not specifically asnail mail.a
A A A 44. The Board announced it would be allowable for votes to be
A A presented
A A A electronically.
A A A 55. Then approximately one week before the end of the voting
period,
A A A the Board changed itsa mind and said only snail mail votes
would be
A A A counted.
A A A 66.A This last minute change in voting rules made it
impossible for
A A A many European voters to have their votes counted, and as
Foreign
A A A Members pay even greater dues, $90. Per year, than US members,
it is
A A A unethical to disallow their votes without allowances for
special
A A A circumstances.
A A A 77.A It is, in fact, destructive to the spirit and reputation
of the
A A A Club to not count votes from ALL paying members.A That would
mean an
A A A extension in time should have been allowed, as necessary, under
the
A A A circumstances of all the confusion to ensure a fair election.
A A A 88.A At present it appears the outdated Bylaws are being
interpreted
A A A too loosely and at the will by the Board. This opens the
question of
A A A how ethical these decisions are.
A A A 99.A In good faith and fairness to everyone, THE ELECTION
SHOULD BE
A A A RE-HELD.A After the fact, the entire summary of results, votes
A A A submitted, votes received, should be open knowledge to the
Membership
A A A and printed in the next Newsletter.
A A A A 1 10.A I am not sure the POCA voting membership is as
keenly aware
A A of
A A A all these issues as I, however I have been aA Board Member and
in the
A A A past I had questions of controversial decisions regarding
certain
A A A issues, i.e. how a tie was handled, how some ballots were not
A A received
A A A across the Country in a timely manner because of weather
conditions,
A A A and so ona| these experiences make me personally sensitive and
aware
A A of
A A A how our Membershipas wishes are honored. The person who fairly
wins
A A the
A A A election, regardless of who, with no questionable decisions and
A A changes
A A A in policy, should be the Editor of Profiles.
A A A Thank you and appreciate your opinions,
A A A Laurie
A A _______________________________________________
A A Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
A A DeTomaso mailing list
A A [1][3]DeTomaso at poca.com
A A [2][4]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
A A To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.)
A A use the links above.
References
A A 1. mailto:[5]DeTomaso at poca.com
A A 2. [6]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
_______________________________________________
Detomaso Forum Managed by POCA
DeTomaso mailing list
[7]DeTomaso at poca.com
[8]http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
To manage your subscription (change email address, unsubscribe,
etc.) use the links above.
--
Michael L. Shortt
Savannah, Georgia
[9]www.michaelshortt.com
[10]michael at michaelshortt.com
912-232-9390
A
This email is protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally
privileged.A If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified
that any retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.A Please reply to the sender that
you
have received this message in error, then delete it.A Thank you
References
1. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
2. mailto:detomaso at poca.com
3. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
4. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
5. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
6. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
7. mailto:DeTomaso at poca.com
8. http://poca.com/mailman/listinfo/detomaso_poca.com
9. http://www.michaelshortt.com/
10. mailto:michael at michaelshortt.com
More information about the DeTomaso
mailing list