about the motion to redo KPFA staff election
Carolyn Birden
anything definitive on this issue?
Carolyn
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Chandra Hauptman <chc...@lmi.net> wrote:
> The below motion was just passed by the National Election Committee of the
> PNB:
>
> "The National Election Committee of the PNB strongly recommends to the
>> National Election Supervisor that the 2010 KPFA staff election uncertified
>> results be invalidated due to gross and repeated violations of the Fair
>> Campaign Provisions and the election redone prior to November 15, 2010."
>>
>
Brian Shiratsuki <set...@gmail.com>
the fair campaign provisions specify the available remedies for violations,
and redoing the election (how much of the election?) is not among them.
furthermore, on-air expression of dissatisfaction with unnamed seated board
members who happened to be candidates does not violate any fair campaign
provision. the website referenced presented a deceitful and strikingly
misinformed position on the activities of named board members, but did not
even mention they were up for reelection. the significance of the event is
really for management, who discovered which among them can keep a
confidence.
the website mentions slates, but not the election. its call to action is to
write the LSB, not to vote in any particular way. most importantly of all,
both candidates mentioned on the website won seats per the preliminary
count, so where is the harm?
the complainant's goose was cooked from the day the ballots arrived with the
``SaveKPFA'' / CL postcard, but without the candidate booklet. after the
early ballot collection of about 1200 ballots in mid-september, before the
candidate booklets finally arrived, i concluded CL would take six seats.
the arithmetic is trivial: last year listeners returned about 3000 ballots,
so assume threshold is 300; 1200 early ballots / 300 = 4 seats; and 1800
ballots submitted later, about half CL, meant up to 3 more seats. that
comes to seven; six seats for CL would be easy even if the opposition beat
them by a bit in the later ballots.
the actual, higher turnout of about 3500 gives CL less margin, but even with
the higher threshold and with the early ballots in smaller proportion, CL
wins 6.7 seats.
CL won six of nine listener seats because pacifica's poverty gave candidate
wealth greater impact. the misleading web page referenced on-air for the
last three days of balloting manifested reckless and inhumane HR practice,
but was unnecessary to CL's 2010 success. the NES should certify the
election, and KPFA listener members should be happy with their choices for
their new wealthier, increasingly elderly board. planned giving is the most
promising option for pacifica's future.
brian s
_______________________________________________
Melinda Iley-Dohn
| Hello Carolyn, I appreciate your frustration. I was on the call on Tuesday. It was a tough one. This sort of discussion makes me happy that the By-Laws were written as they were. Thanks to the contentious nature of this group, they appear to have been written to prevent the very governing groups whose membership is dependent on the outcome of these elections from having the final word in how the selection process is conducted. We have flaws in the By-Laws but this is not among them. IMHO. That, is my definitive thought. Here is my evidence: http://kewg.org/bylaws/art4sec4.html Melinda Iley-Dohn Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania 1759 --- On Wed, 10/13/10, Carolyn Birden <cmc...@earthlink.net> wrote: |
|
Carolyn Birden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pnb_election...@googlegroups.com.