Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: 1998 Governing Board Election Results

Hello Cindy!

> -> >>Failing to achieve the necessary 10% quorum, the meeting was
> -> >>unable to convene for the purpose of electing Board members.

> Perhaps most plus members were unaware of the elections? Consider how 
> visible elections are made for general govt elections - you need to 
> beat people over the heads. Perhaps next time, a weekly mailing of 
> the plus members reminding them of the upcoming date would be a good 
> idea.

-news articles, direct mailings to -plus members, weekly mentions in list INFO
msgs, a whole new list, prominent info at www.hwg.org. How much further can the
guild go before users start to become excessively annoyed?

I think the answer is that you can lead a horse to water, can point to the
water, describe it and say what a good thing it is, hold a bucket of water
right up to the horse's mouth, but ya still can't make it drink. :)

> Apparently most of the candidates didn't feel they should participate 
> in the election process by being involved in this list and some note 
> in the submission of materials - if the candidates don't care, why 
> would the voters? I'm more concerned at the lack of participation 
> by candidates personally. 

Yes, a very valid and important point that I neglected to mention. Part of the
problem was that some of the candydates didn't even know what they were there
for, a couple said 'I don't even know who nominated me or why'. But of those
that did participate I think they did pretty well. They were often mistaken and
uninformed but at least they tried. 

> Potential voters were confused by some portion of the process or 
> eligibility to vote? Perhaps sending every eligible voter a 
> message telling them they ARE eligible and if an org member, 
> they get X votes? 

Voting is one of the few 'extras' of being a plus member, I'd find it pretty
difficult to imagine they missed that one line and were basically unaware. OTOH
there are probably some that did not join for that feature.

> While the proxy, etc. was necessary, the descriptions of it were
> confusing (not GB's fault, just is). It could be that people started
> to read and said "I don't have time for this confusion..." People 
> get enough complex stuff in email and postal mail that if it isn't 
> absolutely mandatory they act, they aren't likely to follow thru. I 
> don't know if there's any way around that or not with HWG voting.

That's somewhat true, most Americans are not aware that they do not 'vote for
the president'. But going to a web page and clicking a checkbox or two isn't
that complex.

> Thanks to all who worked on the election and participated in the 
> process - your efforts are appreciated despite the outcome.

Yes, the NC did a damn good job, and the basic counting couldn't have gone as
smootlhly without Rich's fine scripts.

Have a :) day!

-- 
jim barchuk
jb(at)jbarchuk.com

HWG: hwg-elections mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA