Hi Ria, Thanks for your thoughts and comments, I think the present process for candidates to witness ballot counting is *not biased* relative to the candidate being an incumbent or challenger. Both must gather the 10 signatures of members. That doesn't seem unreasonable - remember they each had to do that to become candidates on the ballot. A incumbent director is not allowed to "drop in" the ballot counting room. I refer you to Standing Order 84-1.44 which spells out details of the ballot counting process. One might ponder why the third paragraph of bylaw 20 require the 10 signatures and a deadline some 6 months ahead of ballot counting as requirements for an observer. It seems to me the reason is to make sure the individual is serious about attending AND to give HQ staff adequate time to make the necessary preparations to accommodate the vetted observers. My thoughts - 73's, Rod, K0DAS On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Rod,
“Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.”
The problem I have with the current system is that for candidates, is that it provides no mechanism for candidates themselves to witness the ballot counts unless they collect 10 signatures.
Candidates at the very least should be entitled to witness their own ballot counting. It would seem that incumbents are entitled to do so because sitting directors don’t have to ask permission.
40 people? That would be an extraordinary circumstance. We had 6 seats contested (5 plus one Vice Director) last year but that was only because of a significant effort. I really doubt that it would be duplicated on a regular basis. Certainly not every election.
But what is stopping people now from collecting 10 signatures now at a club meeting and taking a bus trip to HQ? Again, this would be an extraordinary circumstance. We could easily have 200 people up there under the current system.
“ Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers”
Easy fix:
(g) Attendance by any candidate <b>or designated representative</b> at the counting of the ballots for the candidate’s race will be at the sole expense of the candidate <b> or designated representative</b>
But again. The current by laws don’t address this either. So I go back to the bus trip scenario.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Rod Blocksome <rod.blocksome@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
There are some issues with your first motion to amend bylaw 20 I'd like to bring up before the board:
1 - It's labeled "Election Teller Motion -1" shouldn't it be labeled "Stratton -1" ?
2 - Further down in the motion it is stated "It is accordingly resolved: That By-Law 25 of the ...." yet it seems you are modifying bylaw 20 rather than 25. 3 - Your email states the changes are underlined, yet the third paragraph of bylaw 20 is not shown as deleted nor assigned a paragraph letter. I assume you intended to replace this third paragraph with your new paragraphs (c) through (g) but it's not clear. The current third paragraph of bylaw 20 reads:
*Any member of the League who shall deliver to the Secretary on or before the first day of October of election year a written petition signed by at least ten full members of a division, stating their desire that he or she witness the counting by the committee of tellers of the ballots from that division, shall be permitted to do so.*
4 - My most important concern is: given that the current wording of bylaw 20 third paragraph permits members to witness the ballot counting already, what problem or issue is your motion attempting to solve? Is it your contention that our ballot counting procedures and processes are somehow flawed or suspect or open to error? If so, how exactly does your motion remedy this?
5 - Some practicality issues should be considered when examining your motion. There are elections in five divisions every year - potentially 10 incumbents and perhaps 10 challengers. This is a huge number of ballots to process and, based on my experience, would run well past a normal 8-hour work day. Your motion would potentially add 2 observers for every candidate or 40 people in the room who can only observe? A large number of observers would slow down and potentially lead to human error in the ballot opening, counting, and tabulating process. Further, a minimum of 48 hours notice to vet and accommodate more than one or two observers is just not practical (in my view). Further, your proposed paragraph (g) does not address travel expenses for candidate designated representatives as observers
Bottom line: I believe the current bylaw 20 is consistent with ARRL conducting fair, honest, and accurate ballot counting in it's elections. But, I'm willing to listen to any recent examples that you feel are counter to this.
73s, Rod, K0DAS E&E Committee Chair
On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 7:29 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
Ladies, Gentlemen and ARRL Secretary
Enclosed are two motions that I wish to have considered by the Board at the January meeting. The changes appear as underlines.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box 2232
Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*_______________________________________* _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv