[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: facts for you
- From: acorreia1043@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: "Carolyn" <marhaven@xxxxxxx>, <nancy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "showgsd-l" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 01:13:48 +0000
Hi Carolyn: The way I read Nancy's post was that Bart,"would be able to verify
how many ballots were "invalid". The question I asked was how is Bart to
determine an "invalid" ballot? And as far as the auditors go since they will be
there, perhaps we can ask them to oversee the "valid/invalid" ballot
determination if we give them our criteria, if it exists. They may want to be
compensated for this, but they are there in NY already and I assume that they
would like to continue doing business with us.
You don't get, if you don't ask. This is all centered around the existence of a
criteria to determine "valid/invalid" ballots based upon six different sets of
instructions.
Are there guidelines for Bart or the auditors (if used) to distinguish which is
which?
Tony C
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Carolyn" <marhaven@xxxxxxx>
Hi Tony;
I asked the same question regarding the need for the extra expense and effort
of getting Bart to
New York on Friday to observe the ballot count as we have a "highly
recommended" Auditor in
Mike Sullivan and he will be there auditing and overseeing during the ballot
count......?
It seems that some on the Board felt better having someone from the Board there
to observe
and let us know what the count is right away.
Carolyn marhaven@jps,net
www.Marhaven.com
-- Original Message -----
From: acorreia1043@xxxxxxxxxxx To: nancy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; showgsd-l
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:19 PM
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: facts for you
Hi Nancy: Thanks for this information. I just have one question and it deals
with section of your post:
"Bart was then asked and he agreed that he would attend so that he would be
able to verify how many ballots were "invalid" Bart will not be allowed, per
the contract, to touch the ballots or to see the actual vote, he will be there
to see how many ballots are "thrown out".
The question is, considering the "6 different sets of instructions sent to the
"list" on the "proper" way to handle ballots after the return of same. (some
instructions sent by unauthorized persons)",
can you or the person/persons on the board responsible for Bart's assignment,
supply us and Bart with the criteria that will be used to determine whether a
ballot is "invalid" or not. With six different sets of instructions plus, it
sounds like a Herculean task that Bart has been asked to carry out.
The bottom line is that since we do have independent auditors there to count
the ballots, why can't we just give them the criteria for a "valid" versus
"invalid" ballot and leave it in independent hands. This post is in no way
questioning Bart's integreity, and I'm sure he knows that since we are friends.
It has to do with the "Why" of the assignment. Again, if the criteria exists,
it would be very informative to see.
Stay well.
Tony C
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Nancy Harper" <nancy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Dear List,
> I am sending this email because I would like to try and elevate some of the
> anxiety and rumors that are now circulating.
> The reason the Board met last night was to DISCUSS the problems that have
> reared
> their ugly heads in relation to the current election. Some of those problems
> are:
> 1) Canadians not receiving ballots
> 2) Ballots being returned to the voter
> 3) 6 different sets of instructions sent to the "list" on the "proper" way to
> handle ballots after
> the return of same. (some instructions sent by unauthorized persons).
> 4) The concern the Board has about the ability of Election Services to
> identify
> ballots even if
> received.
> 5) Sharon's request to Election Service to put in writing their intent to
> count
> all ballots which
> Election does not want to do. ( This was suggested by some board members).
> 6) How the ballot company will handle those ballots where all identification
> has
> been blotted
> out.
> 7) Our By Laws state that "all members in good standing shall have the right
> to
> vote".
> So, faced with the above, the Board Members were asked to meet in a phone
> conversation rather than to try and communicate by multiple emails. Due to
> lack
> of answers and follow through, confidence in Election Services has been
> greatly
> diminished and therefore, the majority of the Board thought it was a good
> idea
> to have a Board Member attend the tabulation of the votes. It was suggested
> that a board member NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION would be the proper thing to do.
> Sharon, as Election Officer, was the first one asked if she could attend and
> Sharon stated she could not. Bart was then asked and he agreed that he would
> attend so that he would be able to verify how many ballots were "invalid"
> Bart
> will not be allowed, per the contract, to touch the ballots or to see the
> actual
> vote, he will be there to see how many ballots are "thrown out". It is the
> responsibility of the Board to see that dues paying members are provided the
> right to vote. It is common sense to compare th
> e number of ballots "counted" with this election to the number of ballots
> counted the last 4 or 5 years. Here is a situation were you have to use
> common
> sense as Helen Fisher has pointed out. Yes our By -Laws state the dates and
> terms of elections, the By - Law also guarantee the right to vote. We will
> see
> how many ballots are counted. Everyone hopes this election will move forward
> if at all possible- no one wants to wait and re-do. However, can a member(s)
> challenge the validity of the results with what has happened? That also has
> to
> be considered. There is is not an easy, quick solution, some will agree and
> others disagree. A difficult situation for your Board.
>
> Now, for the annual meeting. It is not cancelled. The reason is was even
> brought up is because the notices were not sent out in accord with the
> By-Laws.
> There have been many statements claiming that the present Board has
> intentionally and continually broken the By-Laws to suite their own agenda.
> Now here is an instance - notice not out per By-Laws but, everyone seems to
> want
> the Membership meeting to be held. So does the Board. Common sense needs to
> prevail. So, technically the By-Laws will be broken - OK with most everyone
> is
> seems.
>
> I hope that this lengthy email has helped. But, as Rita said in the past, it
> is sometimes very difficult to get the message out there to be clearly
> understood. Now, those that read this with an open mind, I hope they will
> understand what has transpired and understand that the Board has tried to do
> the
> right thing. If members have questions I hope they will put them forth with
> an
> honest desire to "hear" & simply not just automatically condemn. For those
> with
> closed minds, who have a built in opinion and have formed judgments, this
> will
> fall on deaf ears, and no amount of information will satisfy them - I hope
> this
> doesn't happen. ( I have worn the word "hope out)
> Nancy Harper
> National Futurity Chair
> Board Member
>
>
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
