USGenWeb 2009 Election
The USGenWeb 2009 Election Headquarters
Voting Period July 1-31, 2009 (note LC = CC)
Early Results subject to verification
National Coordinator - One Year
Representative at Large - Two Years
NWPL County Coordinator Regional Representatives Two Year Term States: AK, CO, ID, IA SD, MN, MA, NE, ND, OR, WA, WY
SEMA County Coordinator Regional Representatives Two Year Term States: AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NJ, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV
SWSC County Coordinator Regional Representative #2 One year interim term States: AZ, AR, CA, HI, KA, LA, MO, NV, NM, OK, TX, UT
SP Representative
Candidate
Cyndie Enfinger
Qualifying
TTP
Votes
Winner
NorthEast/North Central Region SCR Two Year Term States: CT, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI NH, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI
Candidate
Dale Grimm
Qualifying
OHGenWeb
Votes
Winner
NENC CCR Two Year Term States: CT, IL, IN, ME, MA, MI NH, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WI
Candidate
Joe Markovich
Qualifying
MIGenWeb
Votes
Winner
NWPL SCR Two Year Term States: AK, CO, ID, IA SD, MN, MA, NE, ND, OR, WA, WY
Candidate
Gail Kilgore
Qualifying
COGenWeb
Votes
Winner
SWSC CCR #1 One Year Term States: AZ, AR, CA, HI, KA, LA, MO, NV, NM, OK, TX, UT
The new Advisory Board 2009 -2010
==================================================
To all of the members who voted, Thank you.
Eligible Voters overall 1516; Voters = 407 (26.847%)
The Amendment Proposal: Failed: Voted for: 226. Voted against: 155 total = 381, needed to pass = 252 votes. naa naa na naaa na
Actually since 407 voters participated in the election, under the current Bylaws the number need to pass was 269.
Thank you, Lord. Now Jeff will have a harder time messing with the amendments! There is a God. Go file your grievance, Jeff.
Clean sweep for the anti-Rights candidates. One of the Lowest turn-outs in history.
USgw has come to a dead end. Now, less than a hundred voters control the leadership rosters. Every facet of the Project is controlled by a small group of people. The Grievance committee is one example. We now have that Committee with four State Coordinators and only three County Coordinators. However, what the Project may not realize is that three of the members of that Committee are from the SAME state as the Committee Chairperson. Thus, that committee which was supposed to be primarily a CC-based group is subverted thru the selection process into a SC dominated group.
Private email:
Another mostly Anti-CC rights AB has been elected.
From a Sports Fan:
If the CC side had won it would have been a miracle. The ethics in this project are so rancid that election results are pre-determined. They don't miscount the votes. You understand that don't you? Winners are determined in advance. Then the controlling insiders vote.
(name withheld) paraphrased and snipped.......
When people speak out and the results of subsequent actions benefit the members, they are supportive of the new freedoms, but not supportive of the visionaries who made it happen.
It is curious that candidates who hide out during elections, do not have much to say, have no firm convictions, and are just generally quiet, are the ones who usually win elections.
In Iowa the members were encouraged to vote for Sherri. In Arkansas, the members were encouraged to vote AGAINST Barnum.
Several State Coordinators supported the winners, Arkansas for one, and Iowa as another, and the support groups shared private emails to swing this election. I am not surprised by the result. It's just samo, samo.
==================================================
To the Advisory Board: She has caused you and this project esteem, grief, data, public standing, lost CCs, and turmoil. The time has come to end your backing of a dead horse. Do not allow her to cause several more years of bad press. You can do the right thing and end it now. Do the right thing. Make a just ruling.
==================================================
Update: Jeff gets slapped down on Discuss list.
Don and Jeff:
If you recall, when the initial 'snafu' as it has been called on the amendment ballot was changed, my suggestion was to let the election run it's course and see what the numbers said at the end. Personally, I believe members have a right NOT to vote for or against an item and should have a 'no opinion' option on any vote. The organization cannot force any individual to vote, but must give them an opportunity. Even at the executive board, or in our case the Advisory Board level, a member has a right to recuse themselves from the vote, or vote 'present' to remain in the quorum but cast no opinion. There should be no difference between the representative level of voting and the membership level of voting. Be that as it may, let's look at the numbers and the 27 members who you claim may have been disenfranchised in the vote. If they have the option to cast no opinion votes and that is what all 27 did, then the vote outcome is:
For: 226
Against: 155
No Opinion: 27
The amendment would fail lacking the required 2/3, having only 55.39% of the vote.
If no opinion votes are not allowed, then we would have to assume that all 27 of them would vote either for or against the amendment in some combination.
If ALL 27 voted AGAINST the amendment, the vote outcome would be:
For: 226
Against: 182
The amendment would fail lacking the required 2/3, having only 55.39% of the vote.
If ALL 27 voted FOR the amendment, the vote outcome would be:
For: 253
Against: 155
And again, the amendment would fail lacking the required 2/3, having only 62.01% of the vote.
Sturgis is our guide in situations like this, and Sturgis is very clear: "If illegal votes cast or illegal practices engaged in could not have changed the results of the election, the fact that there were illegal votes or practices does not void the election." (Sturgis, p. 161)
No matter what the status of those 27 voters, the outcome would be the same. The 'flaw' in the process which you claim 'botched' the election, does not void the election under the rules of parliamentary procedures.
As I said when this first started, the numbers would tell the tale as to whether the error made a difference. People can argue pilosophy(sic), interpretation, and what is right, wrong, or indifferent until the sun goes down, but I think there's no denying the simple math of the outcome. Error nor no error, the amendment would have failed either way.
That's my opinion, and that, and 50 cents, will get you a cup of coffee.
Scott