|
Grex > Coop13 > #390: Possible rigging of the last Board election | |
|
| Author |
Message |
scholar
|
|
Possible rigging of the last Board election
| 
Jan 24 19:39 UTC 2007 |
In the aftermath of the last Board election, there was some speculation that
people may have run simply so that I wouldn't be elected. While I did intend
intend to run, I anticipated the aforementioned possibility, and so decided
not to announce my candidacy until the last minute. However, I was errantly
put on the list of people who had accepted their nominations by John Remmers,
and as such lost any possible advantage. I was put on the list of people to
vote for without ever having accepted a nomination.
Since this completely invalidates the results, I demand a new election.
|
| 25 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 1 of 25:
|
Jan 24 19:47 UTC 2007 |
I don't demand a new election, however I do demand that we do our best
to support David Hoffman's BoD campaign.
|
scholar
|
|
response 2 of 25:
|
Jan 24 19:59 UTC 2007 |
In the last election, I had five votes and cross, the candidate awarded a seat
who had the least number of votes, had ten. I believe it's quite possible
that, if fewer people had run, which very likely could have happened if John
Remmers didn't errantly announce my candidacy, I would have been elected.
Also, as Nate pointed out to me, the results of the non-member vote were never
made public, even though this has traditionally been done for years. Is it
still possible to post them, or has the data been lost?
|
scholar
|
|
response 3 of 25:
|
Jan 24 20:28 UTC 2007 |
Also, just to ensure that everyone understands that Mr. Remmers's fallacious
announcement may very well have affected the results of the election, no fewer
than FIVE people became candidates after it was made.
|
scholar
|
|
response 4 of 25:
|
Jan 24 20:37 UTC 2007 |
Also: even if you think this may not have changed the fact that I didn't win
a seat, if the announcement did indeed cause more people to run, it inarguable
took votes from OTHER candidates. In either case, the results are completely
inmvalid.
|
krj
|
|
response 5 of 25:
|
Jan 24 20:37 UTC 2007 |
In summary, David's complaint is that people were able to
express their opinion by voting against him.
|
scholar
|
|
response 6 of 25:
|
Jan 24 20:38 UTC 2007 |
Anyone who read what I said would realize that's a complete misconstrual of
my argument.
|
scholar
|
|
response 7 of 25:
|
Jan 24 21:06 UTC 2007 |
Anyway, with slight embarrassment at turning this item into a bunch of my own
responses, rather than cohesive posts, I must say that I believe it is
absolutely vital to the legitimacy of the corportation that it holds fair
elections.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 8 of 25:
|
Jan 24 21:44 UTC 2007 |
re #6: I think #5 is a fair characterization of your position.
|
scholar
|
|
response 9 of 25:
|
Jan 24 22:45 UTC 2007 |
I do not understand how you came to that conclusion.
Please explain.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 10 of 25:
|
Jan 25 01:25 UTC 2007 |
After you were added to the list of candidates, at least one candidate
decided NOT to run, so your thesis would seem to be disproved.
|
scholar
|
|
response 11 of 25:
|
Jan 25 02:02 UTC 2007 |
What are you talking about?
Five minus one is still four, which is a large number of candidates for such
an election, and is certainly enough to have effected the results. One person
running would have been enough.
|
naftee
|
|
response 12 of 25:
|
Jan 25 02:13 UTC 2007 |
I believe scholar has brought up excellent points in this item, and agree that
there should be a complete board election instead of a partial one to replace
john remmers.
i'd also be interested in seeing the results of the non-member vote.
|
naftee
|
|
response 13 of 25:
|
Jan 25 02:14 UTC 2007 |
(unlucky)
|
naftee
|
|
response 14 of 25:
|
Jan 25 02:14 UTC 2007 |
i believe scholar would be an excellet board member, as well.
|
scholar
|
|
response 15 of 25:
|
Jan 25 02:17 UTC 2007 |
Re. 10: Also, Todd has said publicalyl on several occasions that he dropped
out because of all the extra people who hadn't used Grex in months who decided
to run for the board all of a sudden.
Even if that wasn't the reason he dropped out, you could hardly use that as
proof that the erroneous declaration didn't completely fuck up the election.
I don't think you're an intelligent man, Gel, and I haven't since you started
having a fit over posting parts of /etc/passwd files, claiming they were a
breach of security, which is short witted bunk.
E.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 25:
|
Jan 25 06:18 UTC 2007 |
re #10
I decided not to run when I saw mdw and janc running for no reason other than
to dilute cross and scholar's possibility of getting on the board. I felt
dropping out would increase the chances of actual coop cf participants getting
on board instead of the same old stale names that had come out of hiding for
whatever reason.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 17 of 25:
|
Jan 25 08:01 UTC 2007 |
I was happy to see that Marcus' candidacy was not successful,
as I, too, thought it was not motivated by a sincere interest
in becoming re-engaged with Grex but by an intention to block
other people from joining the board.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 18 of 25:
|
Jan 25 15:27 UTC 2007 |
resp:14 Why?
|
remmers
|
|
response 19 of 25:
|
Jan 25 17:22 UTC 2007 |
Hm. It appears that I mistakenly listed scholar as having accepted the
nomination in response 31 of the nominations item (resp:236,31), posted
on November 10. It was an unintentional mistake, but definitely my
fault, and I apologize.
Since the error was made fully 20 days before the election started, and
acceptances are required to be made publicly in the item, I'm surprised
that nobody caught it. But I guess those things happen.
By the way, I haven't talked to Marcus and can't comment on his reasons
for running, but having served with Jan on the board for the past year,
I think resp:16 is full of it as far as its characterization of janc's
motives are concerned.
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 25:
|
Jan 25 17:24 UTC 2007 |
(In #19, the link to the erroneous response should be resp:370,31 .)
|
slynne
|
|
response 21 of 25:
|
Jan 25 17:31 UTC 2007 |
I have to agree with remmers regarding janc's motives. I mean, he has
been on the board for a while now and was running for re-election. He
has been a very valuable member of the board too, fwiw.
|
aruba
|
|
response 22 of 25:
|
Jan 25 19:11 UTC 2007 |
Absolutely.
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 25:
|
Jan 25 21:59 UTC 2007 |
I have to disagree with you both (slynne and remmers.) I don't see janc
rolling up his sleeves and engaging us here in this conference. That alone
was how I drew my conclusion in #16. You can say I'm full of it because he's
been there on the board but to me if you're not willing to participate
regularly in coop cf then what's the point of running? Who does that
represent other than one's self?
|
ric
|
|
response 24 of 25:
|
Feb 11 02:36 UTC 2007 |
Jan is on the board?
|