Let's talk about our problem with voting on Grex

Dec 15 06:15 UTC 1994

   I do believe that the problem we're having getting enough
voters to vote in the current election is the most serious
problem we've ever faced on Grex.

   The reason, of course, is the Internet link.  That caused our
growth to soar, and let us do more neat things, and has enabled us
to have a little money set aside for things.  But its also brought
us a slightly different breed of member, who was definately interested
in get access to something in return for their membership.

   Back in "the olden days" when we had 50 people on a day, it was
a pretty sure bet we had a fairly good idea of why someone joined
Grex--to help us out becusause they saw us a something neat to
support.

   These days, with more than 10 (ten!) times that number on in a
day, things are different.  Humans being the interesting createures
that they are, don't always see the fine print or bother to deal with
the little details.

   Part of this is our fault, I think.  We should have sent via US
mail a "new member packet" which should have consisted of a copy of
the bylaws, one page history of the system, list of people to call
or send email to in case of problems, etc.  Had we done this from the
start, we could have included something that Marcus could write about
the history of coops, going back to the Rochdale coop of 140+ years
ago.  That would have sent something of a message to people and perhaps
they'd have thought a little more about the messages in the motd about
voting time, and what that means.

   But, no matter what we do or should have done, getting a 2/3
majority of voters is/will be hard.  In talking with people in others
clubs/organizations *all of them have bad problems getting quroums
together*.  All of them.  If someone knows of an organization in the
Ann Arbor area that doesn't have this problem, please speak up so we
know about them.  It's beyond the scope of this item, but I think this
is part of the much larger disease that seems to effect Americans in
general about excersizing their rights to vote on anything...

   So, what do we do about this?

   In the "straw poll" item I asked people not to talk about the
problem there.  This is a great place.  Somewhere near the end of
that item (as of 12/14) someone asked is it too much to ask people
to vote.  I now think it might be--but I'd sure as hell like to be
wrong about this.  So what do we do?

   I'll throw out the first idea, namely a new-member pack explaining
things to folks.  That will help a little.

   But what about other options?  Do we have any?

response 4 of 90:

Dec 15 11:55 UTC 1994

Sorry about that.

 If this were my problem to solve, coming in at this point, I'd 
 have the treasurer e-mail every single member, maybe even resorting
 to telephone calls or U.S. mail as needed, and ask their intentions
 regarding their membership status.  Be quite clear in asking if they
 were donating in order to receive the perks, simply to help the system
 out financially, or whether they wanted to vote on Grex issues.
 Explain the hole we've gotten into by accepting money for all three
 of these categories assuming everyone wanted to vote.  Ask their
 permission to put those not wishing to vote into a "donator with perks"
 category.  Those wishing to be involved in the decision making would
 be put into the "voting member" category.
 
 Then you hold the election again, based on the new information.
 
 Do not simply change the bylaws to require less participation
 by the membership.  I don't expect getting folks interested in
 the politics will be a snap or that making a 2/3 quorum will be
 effortless but the plus of a richly involved membership base running
 under the concept of a co-operative is worth some effort in getting
 and keeping folks involved.  Maybe we could even think of a 2/3
 quorum as *our carrot* in encouraging an involved membership.
  
 Go back and find out how our current members really want to be
 labeled.  Have the Board (very quickly now before your
 terms expire and there isn't a Board quorum) make a change to the
 existing Internet access policy allowing those making a donation
 equal to membership dues the same perks as voting members.  But
 don't tarry on this one too long.  It gets real complicated once
 January 1 comes along. 

response 6 of 90:

Dec 15 16:03 UTC 1994

Reluctantly, I think we should allow abstentions to count as
part of the vote. I have no problem at all with jep's position
and understand it. I would not think that very many members
were not voting for the same reason as jep. But maybe they are.

Also, I think the board should amend the bylaws to create a 
class of non-voting members. On joining, a member would declare
whether they wanted to be a voting or nonvoting member. They 
could also change this at any time.

response 8 of 90:

Dec 15 17:15 UTC 1994

You could have different classes of membership with different dues and
different privileges - many organizations do. Many have voting and
non-voting as components of the classes. But I don't think any of this
will solve the problem. I strongly recommend that we eliminate quorums.
That's the same as calling non-voters "abstensions". If a member wants to
vote, they will, and if they don't, they have literally and factually
*abstained*.  Why monkey around with the facts? All public voting is
without quorums. However, there is nothing we can do *now*, except rerun
the election in January, if it comes to that - and put the bylaw
amendments on the same ballot. 

response 10 of 90:

Dec 15 19:44 UTC 1994

Would have to amend the bylaws to do this. But I am a little leery of two
classes of membership with that *sole* distinction. ASs has been metioned,
since there is no distinction except a preference, one or the other would
have to be convertible to the other on demand. So, we could have an
instantaneous insurge of "nonvoting" members at the last moment, in order
to preserve some, e.g. "perk", reserved to members that are concerned about
the future of the system.

response 12 of 90:

Dec 15 20:15 UTC 1994

My suggestion in #4 would not require a change in the Bylaws.  Nor
would it result in multiple types of membership.

response 14 of 90:

Dec 15 23:11 UTC 1994

What are the arguements *for* requiring a quorum?

response 16 of 90:

Dec 16 02:17 UTC 1994

[fredda, Picospan (this conferencing software) doesn't word wrap, so you
need to hit a Return/Enter every 70-or-so characters.  Otherwise your
responses are difficult to read.]
 
Money donated to Grex may be a considered a charitable deduction by both
the giver and givee, however, and that's what counts.

response 18 of 90:

Dec 16 03:37 UTC 1994

   I definately don't want to see "classes" of membership.  It just makes
things more complicated.
   Part of me has been thinking about this all day now.  If Grex can
be many things to a lot of people, I guess I wonder if its fair to ask
people to vote if they don't want to.  Why should they, really, if they
like whats going on, if they don't like participating in "politics", if
they don't think they're capable of dealing with "technical issues".  I'm
not saying that these are reasonable reasons not to vote, but I'll bet
there are people with just these feelings.  So why make people vote?
Unforunately, if Grex is about freedom, then part of that freedom is
the right to not vote (however misguided I might think that is).

response 20 of 90:

Dec 16 04:32 UTC 1994

The proposal in #9 was merely to codify some thoughts that others had
thrown out.  I'm not actually in favor of it myself, and believe, with
some sorrow that the quorum should go.

response 22 of 90:

Dec 16 05:03 UTC 1994

   I think you've got it right.

response 24 of 90:

Dec 16 05:29 UTC 1994

I want to point out that allowing abstentions and creating a second class 
of members called "non-voting members" is functionally the same thing, 
except that allowing abstentions instead of creating a new member class 
is simpler, easier to understand, and it gives more freedom of choice to
members about when to exercise their franchise.

How can a minority "sneek" anything by when proposals must be posted in co-op
and discussed for 2 weeks.  Which reminds me....