Re: [Fulcrumsofchange] [PNB_Elections:419] Re: Recount Ruling at KPFK
Carolyn Birden
supervisors local and national, often with the approval of foundation
counsel, are expensive, and I believe that stations should resist
having the cost of these legal expenses billed back to the station in
question. The elections supervisors local and national report to the
ED, not to the station managers or boards. Why should stations have
to pay for the mistakes made beyond their control?
Carolyn
At 4:52 PM -0700 6/28/08, Kevin White wrote:
>Well, Terry, there you have it.
>
>K
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Jan Goodman <janj...@gmail.com>
>To: pnb_el...@googlegroups.com
>Cc: Kevin White <cuitla...@yahoo.com>;
>fulcrums...@pacificana.org; PacificaR...@yahoogroups.com;
>Terry Goodman <ti...@flex.com>; Terry Goodman
><tgoo...@roadrunner.com>
>Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 6:49:26 PM
>Subject: Re: [PNB_Elections:419] Re: Recount Ruling at KPFK
>
>The election supervisors should have checked that Makalani was a
>member before they started counting the votes. That is it. If that
>had been done, he would have been disqualified and there would not
>have been a problem. End of story.
>
>Jan Goodman
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Jun 28, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Terry Goodman
><tgoo...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
>
>
>On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Kevin White wrote:
>
>>My question is, and I think Melinda will support me on it, but why
>>had the local elections supervisor qualified him in the first place?
>>In Houston you have to fill out forms proving your eligibility?
>>
>>This would not have happened in Houston.
>
>Mr. Makalini was a write-in candidate because he did not qualify for
>nomination by the nomination deadline. The bylaws require membership
>for nomination but do not require nomination or membership for
>election as a delegate. The National Election Supervisor did not have
>a legal opinion supporting disqualification in the election tally on
>the basis of non-membership, so he did not disqualify Makalini in the
>election. If an unofficial candidate in Houston obtained STV
>threshold with write-in votes, the NES would have ruled him or her
>elected just the same as at KPFK; and if it was then discovered via
>challenge that the individual elected was not a member of the
>Foundation, the NES would have used the same arguments in attempting
>to persuade that individual to withdraw.
>
>If Pacifica obtains a valid legal opinion that membership is required
>for election as a delegate, then a future NES can be prepared to check
>this qualification and handle such write-in votes differently during
>the tally. Perhaps Pacifica now has such an opinion and is retallying
>at KPFK in part for this reason. Membership is required for election
>in the opinion of the judge in the KPFK litigation, but he cited the
>bylaws rather than case law for his authority, and the bylaws alone
>are inadequate support for this preliminary opinion of law. If the
>judge has good clerks then the final opinion will include relevant
>citations, but Pacifica can't wait for that final opinion if it hopes
>to avoid election nullification by presenting an alternative to the
>judge that all parties in the suit, at least, find acceptable.
>
>The judge would bring back delegates like myself who thought we were
>free of the madness for awhile and unseat all those newly elected --
>which includes the KPFK LSB Chair, Vice-Chair, and Treasurer. Then
>we'd have to figure out whether it is the list of candidates from the
>recent election or the unelected candidates from the long-ago previous
>election that constitute the replacement candidate pool under our
>bylaws and the language of the judge's ruling, or if there is no pool.
>If the voided election still counts for pool purposes (which requires
>certified rankings to determine the proper sequence of automatic
>replacements) then we're pretty much at the delegate constitution
>where we are or where we'd be with the new tally results (provided all
>the re-seated delegates agree to resign), except that all seats would
>be up for re-election next time under the judge's formula,
>re-empowering then (for a shortened term, I suppose) the marginal
>constituencies represesented by low-ranked candidates that hobbled
>local governance in its first year. If the recent pool is ruled void
>and without tally or all re-seated delegates don't resign, then the
>final composition of local governance after resignations will be
>different than the expressed will of the membership in the recent
>election -- sufficiently different, I suspect, to warrant rescinding
>and re-voting the election of local area Directors mid-term.
>
>I think that either tally is better than no tally. If the Judge is
>correct that Makalini was not qualified for election, then I think the
>Plaintiffs are correct in arguing that his votes should have been
>redistributed during the preference vote tally. If the law allows a
>non-member to represent members in a corporate membership election,
>however, then I think that the related NES rulings (except on the
>automatic first-place ranking of write-in votes) were correct and that
>his initial certification of the Listener-Sponsor Delegate elections
>at KPFK (and that tally) should stand, because that's what the
>Corporate bylaws require. As to the incidents around the election
>that the judge cites in support of nullification, I think he's wrong
>and should defer to the judgement of the independent National
>Elections Supervisor, Casey Peters, who researched, considered, and
>dealt with these various other issues as they arose with integrity and
>good faith.
>
>--Terry Goodman
> Former Chair, PNB Elections Committee
>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Fulcrumsofchange mailing list
>Fulcrums...@pacificana.org
>http://lists.pacificana.org/listinfo.cgi/fulcrumsofchange-pacificana.org