[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC EC Elections - Voting Starts tomorrow 23 Nov 2015

[Seun Ojedeji]

<trying again, as my phone suggested wrong wordings>

Hello,

Since it's raised that election threshold is not inline with the bylaw,
then those elected may not be legitimately valid and therefore not subject
to the NCUC bylaw. I suggest that this be fixed before the election.

However in a case where the fix is more time consuming/complicated then the
current Chair could formerly ask members to raise any objections in using
the previous threshold. In the absence of objection perhaps that can be
sufficient enough to proceed to election.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 23 Nov 2015 20:15, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Since it's raised that election threshold is not inline with the bylaw,
> then those elected may not be legitimately valid and suggest to the same
> bylaw. I suggest that this be fixed before the election.
>
> However in a case where the fix is be more time consuming/complicated then
> the current Chair could formerly ask members to raise any objections in
> using the previous threshold. In the absence of objection perhaps that can
> be sufficient enough to proceed to election.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 23 Nov 2015 15:09, "William Drake" <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ed
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:33 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Wow. I hadn't realized that we had been ignoring the Bylaws in tabulating
>> our votes in past years. I knew there was a difference between the NCUC and
>> NCSG voting weights but had assumed we had been following our own Bylaws
>> all of these years. It was only when MaryAm, in her usual efficient manner,
>> brought our attention to the vote weighing system in use that I discovered
>> the problem.
>>
>>
>> I’m on break teaching my class so I can’t look it up, but I believe the
>> ballot info sent out every year says at the bottom how the votes are
>> counted.
>>
>> I do recall one election in the past that was decided by a single vote:
>> it bothers me that we may have awarded an EC seat to a party that may not
>> have won the election under our own Bylaws!
>>
>>
>> Yes, that was the time you were elected as well.  Whether the fact that a
>> small number of large organizational members had two more votes than
>> smaller organizations accounted for that outcome is, of course,
>> unknowable.  Could just as well have inflated the count for the losing
>> candidate.
>>
>>
>> As a practical matter, now that the discrepancy is known, I'd suggest
>> that  we either need to follow our own Bylaws or risk having a vote
>> challenged by a losing candidate that would have won had the Bylaws been
>> followed. Of course, if all the candidates were comfortable with using the
>> NCSG formula that would not be an issue on a practical level although it
>> still would be bad form. I guess this does illustrate, once again, the need
>> for NCUC Bylaws reform. At a time when accountability of the SG's and
>> Constituencies themselves have been questioned by certain Board members as
>> part of the CCWG,  I'd suggest we fully evaluate this problem  and come up
>> with a procedurally equitable decision at the front end of this election
>> period. A challenge of the election results is not something any of us want
>> or need.
>>
>>
>> Why would a losing candidate presume this?  Why is conforming to the
>> rules of the SG of which we are a part bad form?  Why would revising the
>> NCUC bylaws be a 'solution' when this would precisely involve synching our
>> tally method with NCSG, i.e. the exact same process and result?
>>
>> I suppose we can send out the ballot a bit later if people first want to
>> debate whether or not we should do as we have done before.  Not my
>> preference but I’m open to the wisdom of the crowd.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:56 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ed
>>
>> On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:10 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> So rather than the 4-2-1 voting proportions used for NCSG  elections,
>> NCUC elections are run using a 2-1-1 vote weighing system. In practical
>> terms the NCUC Bylaws give more power to individual members, the NCSG
>> Charter to large organisations.
>>
>> I do hope the tabulation software will be programmed to accurately
>> reflect the NCUC Bylaws. We have several contested elections with some fine
>> candidates and in fairness to them it would be good to use the vote
>> weighing system contained in our Bylaws and not that of our SG.
>>
>>
>>
>> This puzzled me so I checked with Glen and Maryam as well as the 2013 and
>> 2014 final vote tallies I have saved on my computer.  As far as we can see,
>> what we’ve done for some years now is follow the NCSG Charter's vote
>> weighting rather than the NCUC Bylaws' weighting, which was defined prior
>> the SG's formation. You were on the NCUC EC when we did this in the 2013
>> election and I don’t recall it being an issue.  There’s obviously an
>> argument for having harmonization with the later and technically higher
>> level model, no?  Why should we change direction at this point?
>>
>> Unfortunately, Tapani (king of the data base) is off line today, so maybe
>> we’ll hold off a day on sending out ballots until we can hear from him.
>> I’m about to get off a bouncy train in Zurich where I teach for four hours,
>> and in any event have never touched the data base, so I’d rather make sure
>> that our understanding fits with his.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20151123/ad9ac366/attachment-0002.html>