<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Hi</div><div><br></div><div>Copying Brenden and Robin for institutional memory, as they've been leads on prior elections. </div><div><br></div><div>Action items in bold.</div><div><br></div>1. <b>Before the BA meeting we have to give Glen a complete list of eligible voters,</b> i.e. members "in good standing". Since we don't do check in like NCSG (where precision is needed because of contestation between constituencies for chair and council seats), I guess <b>everyone for whom we have complete contact information</b> at <a href="http://www.ncuc.org/participate/members/">http://www.ncuc.org/participate/members/</a> [assuming this is current] is deemed to be in good standing. <div><br></div><div><br></div><div>2. An additional wrinkle is that we have weighted voting. Under the current bylaws, </div><div><br></div><div>*Members in good standing with a current membership under 1000 people, or under 200 employees, shall be called “Small Organizations and shall have one vote.<br><br>*Members in good standing and with a current membership of 1000 or more people or employment of 200 or more employees shall have two votes.<br><div><br></div><div>These are of course heroic assumptions; how many member orgs do we have with membership of 1000 or more people or employment of 200 or more? Can't be many. And that an org with 990 members or 180 employees would be called 'small' and have only one vote, equal to an individual member, seems odd. Something for bylaws revision mavens to reconsider, but those are the rules for now. <b>Which means that the list needs to differentiate and reflect the votes per organization.</b></div><div><br></div><div><b>=> Tapani and Wilson, you compiled the members list to subscribe people to the new listserv. Do you have a version that includes contact details? Does it differentiate between large and small? </b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>=> Robin, I believe you did a list for the NCSG election that indicates org size/votes? Maybe we should check yours against whatever </b><b>Tapani and Wilson have; even though yours will have NPOCs and ineligibles we can pick out and cross check the NCUCers.</b></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>3. That all members are potentially eligible of course poses some risk in that folks who are really not following or responding to NCUC mail probably won't vote, resulting in a lower than one would like turnout. Last year it appears that just 140 votes were cast <a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2012-December/012893.html">http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2012-December/012893.html</a> out of what was probably what, @ 250 at that point? Luckily (at least for now), our bylaws don't appear to specify a threshold needed to be quorate; it's just the person with the most votes wins, and you may recall Norbert beat Mary for the Asian seat just 66 to 65. That said, we have always done a lot of get out the vote pestering, and should do so again. <b>General messages to the whole list will be sent with reminders, but it would also make sense to divide up the members list and have each EC member send personal bilateral messages to like 50 voters.</b> Yes it will take a couple hours, but our experience has often been that bilateral messages to Dear Bob rather than Dear Member are more effective in spurring people to act. This will need to be done during the election period itself.<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div>4. As I said in a prior message, the way it will work is, once Glen has the list with address from us, she dumps it into the tally data base. She has to be the one to push the button to launch the tally machine. She can do this on Nov. 22, the Friday after the Public Forum in BA, so when those of us who are going get home the poll will be underway. While she is away, Nathalie can be the support person who responds to "I didn't get my ballot" messages etc. We'll need to coordinate with her.</div><div><b><br></b></div><div><b>Brenden and Robin, am I forgetting or mangling anything?</b></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>5. Again, in light of staff availability and meeting timings etc, I propose we do</div><br><div>October 21-November 7: Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss (2 1/2 weeks, negates the IGF distraction)<br>November 8-21: Nominees submit statements (BA attendees would have a week prior, and can advance plan, nominations having gone on for weeks before)<br>November 22- December 5: Election period<br>December 6: Results announced</div><div><br></div><div>Since the 21st is little more than two weeks away, I'd like to announce this sooner than later on ncuc-discuss.</div><div><br></div><div>Feedback, please.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></body></html>