[DeTomaso] Letter to Voting POCA Members

[Julian Kift]

Laurie,
 
Well said, I think everyone on list is already aware of my stance from prior emails (rants) on the subject.
 
On reflection rather than walk away from POCA (which would be easy to do) I intend to renew my membership and when the time comes be sure that I am fully prepared to comply with all voting requirements (assuming rules don't change mid election) and thus use my (and my registered associate) vote to help change out the current administration, starting at the the top... I encourage others to do similar and vote with their ballot, not their feet.
 
A few bad apples shouldn't be allowed to spoil the orchard.
 
Julian
 
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:53:35 -0500
To: detomaso at poca.com
Subject: [DeTomaso] Letter to Voting POCA Members
From: detomaso at poca.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
 
 

_______________________________________________

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. 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
   Laurie,

   Well said, I think everyone on list is already aware of my stance from
   prior emails (rants) on the subject.

   On reflection rather than walk away from POCA (which would be easy to
   do) I intend to renew my membership and when the time comes be sure
   that I am fully prepared to comply with all voting requirements
   (assuming rules don't change mid election) and thus use my (and my
   registered associate) vote to help change out the current
   administration, starting at the the top... I encourage others to do
   similar and vote with their ballot, not their feet.

   A few bad apples shouldn't be allowed to spoil the orchard.

   Julian

   Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 14:53:35 -0500
   To: detomaso at poca.com
   Subject: [DeTomaso] Letter to Voting POCA Members
   From: detomaso at poca.com


To all Voting POCA Members,
I feel the need to share that I am personally disturbed bythis recent POCA Elect
ion process.  Asthere was one position where two were running, Mike Drew and Mik
e Haney forProfiles Editor, I am not convinced the process was conducted properl
y and Iwould like to be sure the result represented the majority of votingmember
s.  As a POCA member, I am askingfor a REVOTE and hope that others will second a
nd agree to back up this requestas a motion!  I am writing this of my ownfree wi
ll and opinion and without the knowledge of either of those running for the Edit
orposition.

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-linewhich included the names of bo
th 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 b
e submitted by email as many members prefer thetechnologically current and exped
ited way of voting via the Internet. There isno reason to disallow this as by su
bmitting with ones membership number thereis no way of duplicating votes.  Assom
eone 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 electroni
cally.
55. Then approximately one week before the end of thevoting period, the Board ch
anged its mind and said only snail mail votes wouldbe counted.
66.   This last minute change in voting rules made itimpossible for many Europea
n voters to have their votes counted, and as ForeignMembers pay even greater due
s, $90. Per year, than US members, it is unethicalto disallow their votes withou
t 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 shou
ld 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 decisi
ons are.
99.  In good faith and fairness to everyone, THE ELECTIONSHOULD BE RE-HELD.  Aft
er the fact, theentire summary of results, votes submitted, votes received, shou
ld 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 Memberships wishes arehonored. The person who fairly wins t
he election, regardless of who, with no questionable decisions and changes in po
licy, should be theEditor of Profiles.
Thank you and appreciate your opinions,
Laurie



   _______________________________________________ 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.