[wplug-board] ballots and bylaws revision

[David Ostroske]

On 9/24/06, Vance Kochenderfer <vkochend at nyx.net> wrote:
> Feel free to share this with the board.

Copying Vance's message to the -board list...

Patrick? Bill? Are you out there?

> David Ostroske wrote:
> > I should note that we broke the rules by selecting tellers at the
> > nominations meeting. They're supposed to be selected at the meeting in
> > October. In the interim, though, we could tap them to handle
> > collecting and acknowledging the absentee ballots. No doubt, they can
> > be re-nominated to act as tellers in October.
>
> I think (though I could certainly be wrong) that all we did was
> ask for volunteers to serve as tellers, and didn't make any
> decisions on that.  AFAICT, it's up to the October meeting to
> actually vote on picking tellers.

That's how I'm interpreting it. I'll say that volunteers were sought,
that these three offered their help, and that the membership accepted
them without objection. But I won't say that they were selected to be
tellers.

I ran into John McCarter and Bob Turley at the Pittsburgh Perl
Workshop. I told them what was happening and asked for their advice.
John said that yes, we should follow the Election special rules of
order that we set for ourselves. It could be as simple as announcing
their names and accepting them as tellers, if we can get unanimous
consent.

> > I've made a case for having Mike O'Connor, or one of the other
> > "tellers," receive the ballots and send confirmation to the
> > membership.
>
> I'm not sure that's necessary or desirable.  Since the Secretary
> has to keep the inner envelopes sealed, the possibility of him
> altering or falsifying a ballot is reduced (not that I expect him
> to do either of these :).  In theory, the Secretary could delegate
> this task (as was done last year), but I'm not entirely comfortable
> with that arrangement since the rule assigns the Secretary the
> duties of accepting ballots and bringing them to the meeting.
>
> But if you do delegate that responsibility, it won't invalidate the
> election, IMO.

I'll probably delegate the task this year, just for the sake of
practicality. Patrick and Bill have the keys to the WPLUG mailbox, and
both work in Squirrel Hill, within walking distance of our post
office.

Guys, the box would need to be checked more often than it's checked
now. It was about once every ten days, right? Is it checked more
frequently now?

> > Actually, Vance, did you have any other procedures that you followed
> > last year when you collected the ballots? You seem to have set a good
> > precedent that we could follow.
>
> Here's what I can remember.  In addition to e-mailing those who
> voted by ballot, I e-mailed the Board the night before the
> election meeting to inform them of how many ballots were received
> by mail (but not who sent them).  I kept these envelopes separate
> going into the tellers meeting so that if someone mailed a ballot
> and brought one in person as well, only the later ballot would be
> counted.  Once everybody's names were validated, we mixed all the
> ballots together so they were effectively anonymous at that point.

Sounds good. I'd probably want a more frequent report as the weeks
progress, but I can work that out.

> I have a tally sheet from last year that came in really handy when
> counting the vote and can provide copies.

I could use the layout that you used, Vance. If you can email me a
copy of last year's tally sheet, I can provide a new sheet for this
year.

> To be honest, the process is actually easier than it looks.  The
> most work is in preparing the ballot and the www.wplug.org/vote
> page.

Fortunately, we have precedent for both of these things this year. The
2006 vote page will be posted to the wiki (and locked), and the
ballot's first draft is going out tonight or tomorrow, depending on
how fast I can get it done. The ballot will be my first priority.

> Later,
> Vance

-- 
David Ostroske <eksortso at gmail.com>