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

[Mueller, Milton L]

I would favor going with the bylaws, especially if it is easy for Maryam to change. 
The 4-2-1 formula was meant to differentiate between large and small organizations, and individuals. 2-1-1 doesn't distinguish between large and small organizations, which may or may not be the right thing to do, but if the bylaws say 2-1-1 we should try to follow them. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ncuc-discuss [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf
> Of Tapani Tarvainen
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2015 3:52 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC EC Elections - Voting Starts tomorrow 23
> Nov 2015
> 
> Hi Bill,
> 
> Without digging into email archives, my recollection is that in 2013 I first
> made the voter list using 2-1-1 weights as per our bylaws, but you decided to
> use 4-2-1 instead on grounds of consistency with NCSG and precedent
> (apparently it had been done that way previously), so I redid the list that way,
> Chair being in charge of elections it was your call. I don't remember how
> extensively that was discussed among the entire EC, but I do recall suggesting
> bylaws change to align NCUC and NCSG weightings.
> 
> In 2014 I was not in the EC but I'm pretty sure 4-2-1 weighing was used then as
> well. I seem to recall showing Maryam how to use the script I wrote for the
> purpose; looking at it now I see it hasn't been changed since December 2013,
> and it uses the 4-2-1 weighing (the code for 2-1-1 alternative is present but
> commented out).
> 
> So, history and consistency with NCSG favours 4-2-1, bylaws say 2-1-1.
> 
> The bylaws also say that
> 
> "The Chair shall also: [...] Establish ballots for voting, for review by the EC"
> 
> and
> 
> "The Executive Committee shall have the following duties: [...] Approve all
> ballots for online elections"
> 
> So, over to you and NCUC EC.
> 
> Technically changing the weights in the list is trivial (I think Maryam could do
> it in about 15 seconds), if that's what you decide.
> This is not a technical problem but a political decision.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Nov 23 12:56, 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