PNB Election Committee conf. call Tue. -agenda items?

[Bill Crosier]

Please send to me, or to this list as you prefer, items you'd like to
add to the agenda for Tuesday's PNB Election committee meeting.

We already have:

* Review & approve minutes from last (July 22) meeting

* Report from NES, Q&A

* Status update/elections problems & suggestions for each station
(I've heard of some more problems at KPFK regarding election carts,
and apparently WPFW still has only a small number of candidates, but
I have not heard much from other stations.) If possible, please have
specific suggestions/corrective action if you have a problem to
report, and of course send them to your LES and our NES first.

* Ken has a motion for the committee to consider: "Send campaign
booklets to all voters except those who have originated a request not
to receive them. Such a request will be received by the LES via
post, email or phone." Please see his e-mail from this afternoon for
more details.

* Proposed Bylaws amendments dealing with elections -- the PNB
decided to give more time for people to review proposed ones, and
submit others, so did not decide to start the 60 day notice and
review period at the PNB conference call/meeting last week. So
there's still time for comments and discussion and revisions. Ken
and Brian (not on the committee this year) sent some
suggestions/comments and I'll try to put them together with the
proposed amendments I sent to this list earlier, hopefully by
tomorrow night or Tue. morning. If you have any other proposed
amendments having to do with elections, now's the time to bring them
forward.

Other agenda items, anyone?

Bill

--
Bill Crosier
kp...@crosierbiomed.com 713-641-4941
Support KPFT - Radio for Peace - 90.1 FM Houston http://kpft.org
Progressive Action Alliance http://progressiveactionalliance.org

[Shawn Casey O'Brien]

As I have a KPFK GM Search Committee meeting Tuesday night, I will be unable to attend and am requesting an excused absence. Yeah, I know I'm breaking all your hearts.

Shawn

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PNB Elections Committee" group.
> To post to this group, send email to pnb_el...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pnb_election...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pnb_elections?hl=en.
>

[Bill Crosier]

Here's what I have so far, for the draft agenda for this evening's Election Committee meeting.   Please send me (or to this elections committee list) anything else you'd like to add to the agenda.

Below that is some information on proposed Bylaws amendments dealing with elections (one of the agenda items), and I hope you will review that material before the meeting, too.  It has the proposed amendments I sent out previously, along with comments I've received so far.

All of you on the committee should have received an automatic notice with the call in number and code early this morning (and another notice Sunday morning).  If you don't see it, check your spam folder and if you still can't find it, let me know.

My comment on Ken's motion:  Let's be sure to ask any questions we have for Renee during the first hour of the call tonight, as she won't be able to stay on for the entire call.  I know the main reason for not printing and mailing the complete candidate info to all members is because of cost, and she can clarify what the cost difference is.  When we passed the earlier opt-out motion in the spring, this was before we had figures on costs for printing and mailing.  I know Renee plans to make it easy for members to get all the candidate info (by requesting via phone or e-mail) in hard copy in the mail, or via the web, and some people prefer getting the info online rather than keeping up with a printed booklet for several weeks, but I admit we don't really know how many people might not vote because of this.  My guess is not many but I'd like to hear from people with real experience in this area.

Bill

- - - - -

Draft PNB Elections Committee Agenda

Tuesday, Aug. 10, 8:30 PM EDT

1.  Call to order and roll call

2.  Approval of agenda (10 min.)

3.  Approval of July 22 meeting minutes (5 min.)

(Please review the draft minutes that Ken sent to all comm. members the evening of July 22, after the meeting.)

4.  Report from National Election Supervisor, current status and plans (30 min.)

Note:  Renee said she will probably only be able to be on the call for an hour this evening as she has a lot of matters to attend to, regarding elections.

5.  Report from each station area re: elections (please have specifics on any problems or other items needing
attention, and what needs to be done about them) (30 minutes)

6.  New Business (30 min.)

6A. Motion from Ken Aaron:  Send campaign booklets to all voters except those who have originated a request not to receive them.  Such a request will be received by the LES via post, email or phone.

6B. Other items?

7.  Confirm next committee meeting date (Tue. Sep. 14) (5 min)

8.  Review Action Items (5 min.)

9.  Adjourn (approx. 10:30 PM EST)

- - - - -

Proposed Pacifica Bylaws amendments dealing with elections, with comments I've received so far:

1.  Stop defining one-third = 1/4

Proposed amendment #1:

Change the second sentence of Article Three, Section 7 from:

   "A quorum of the Staff Members shall be one-third (1/4) of those Staff Members entitled to vote on the matter, as of the applicable record date."

to:

   "A quorum of the Staff Members shall be one-fourth (1/4) of those Staff Members entitled to vote on the matter, as of the applicable record date."

Bill's Comment: 

This section has caused confusion to election supervisors ever since it was put in the Bylaws.  If the NES guesses wrong as to which fraction is correct, it might be another reason for a losing candidate to sue us.

 

Ken's Comment: 

I think we do better with one third (1/3) not one fourth (1/4) of staff.  Assuming this is to accept/reject union contract changes etc, 1/4 could certainly lead to a small faction controlling the vote.

 

Bill's comment #2:

Either 1/4 or 1/3 is OK with me, as long as it's clear which fraction we want to use.

2.  Stop defining 30 = 31

Proposed amendment #2:

Change the first sentence of Article 4, Section 5 from:

   "In a Delegate election year, the nomination period for seats being vacated shall open on June 1 and remain open for thirty (30) days, closing on July 1." 

to:

   "In a Delegate election year, the nomination period for seats being vacated shall open on June 1 and remain open for thirty (30) days, closing on June 30." 

Comment:  The difference is only one day, but let's be clear whether it's supposed to be 30 days (with nominations closing June 30), or 31 days (closing July 1).  It's another lawsuit waiting to happen.

 

Ken's Comment: 

I think it should be changed to:

   "In a Delegate election year, the nomination period for seats being vacated shall remain open for forty-five (45) consecutive days commencing on June 1st or when electoral carts begin airing on the station, which ever is later."

Bill's comment:

I'd rather not say it always should be 45 days.  I just want to remove the discrepancy between 30 and 31 days.  I think that if we can get the NES and LESs hired early enough (as mentioned in the next proposed amendment below), that 30 days is enough.  In addition, if amendment #3 below is approved, then we would not need to specify 45 days either because the NES could change it if needed.

3.  Allowing the NES some flexibility in key election dates/schedules, when the NES is not hired by March 1:

Proposed amendment #3:

Add the following to the end of the first paragraph of Article Four, Section 5:

"Notwithstanding the above dates in this paragraph, the National Election Supervisor (NES), after consulting with management at all stations to review plans for fund drives and other possible conflicts with elections, may adjust all the other dates in this paragraph as necessary to ensure that there is (1) adequate time for preparation for the elections at each station, and (2) adequate promotion at each station to obtain an adequate number of qualified candidates.  For determining whether the nomination deadline date should be extended, if the number of candidates in each election is at least twice the number of positions to fill, then the number of candidates shall be deemed to be adequate.  However, there is no requirement that the nomination deadline be extended indefinitely if this number of candidates is not obtained.  Any adjustments to the election dates should ensure that the elections are completed and certified by December 1 so the newly elected Delegates may be seated as provided in Article Seven, Section 6B."

 

Ken's Comment: 

Sounds pretty good.

 

Background/Bill's comment:

Article 4, Section 4A and section 5 specify dates regarding elections that we repeatedly have trouble with.  It seems to be difficult to hire our NES by March 1 of each election year, and then we have other problems caused by inadequate time for preparations, including:  recruiting, selecting, hiring, and training LESs; recording promotional carts and scheduling other on-air election promotion, coordinating with station managers about fund drive schedules, etc.  For every election, the PNB and/or the NES has to struggle with whether to change/extend certain dates/deadlines, even when the Bylaws don't provide for such changes, and we don't need to invite more lawsuits and waste so much time fussing over what we should do and what the Bylaws allow.

 

An amendment was passed a couple of years ago moving up the election schedule (to avoid conflicting with fall fund drives and public elections (in which so many of our board members get involved), and giving more time between the nominations close and the ballot mailing for the election supervisors to do all that's necessary.  But we still have trouble meeting those dates for every election, and it eats up lots of time for the LSBs, PNB, election supervisors, and others while not solving the problems (and sometimes making things worse if the election supervisors don't have enough time to prepare for the elections).

Of course, we should still try to get an NES hired by March 1, but if we continue having trouble doing this, then an amendment may make it easier to get our elections running with fewer problems, without having to rush so much to start the nominations period per the Bylaws date and then extend various dates contrary to what the Bylaws say anyway.

Also, note that Article 3, section 7 defines the quorum requirements, and Article 4, section 5 already provides for extending the ballot close date in order to achieve quorum (but not other dates).  Therefore, this is already taken care of and we don't need to add or change anything to make sure we get enough ballots to achieve quorum.

4.  STV/IRV voting method with ties

Proposed amendment #4:

Change Article Fifteen, Section 1, Subsection B "INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING METHOD", paragraph numbered 2, from:

  "2. Each ballot shall list all candidates for the position, on which ballot the voter shall rank the candidates in order of preference (with 1 representing the voter's first choice, 2 representing the voter's second choice and so on)."

to:

  "2. Each ballot shall list all candidates for the position, on which ballot the voter shall rank the candidates in order of preference (with 1 representing the voter's first choice, 2 representing the voter's second choice and so on).  The voter may rank as many or as few candidates as desired."

 

Ken's comment:

Better would be:

  "2. Each ballot shall list all candidates for the position, on which ballot the voter shall rank the candidates in order of preference (with 1 representing the voter's first choice, 2 representing the voter's second choice and so on).  The voter may rank as many or as few candidates as desired but should not use the same ranking for more than one candidate (not mark two or more candidates as rank 1).."

 

AND ALSO:

Change Article Fifteen, Section 1, Subsection B "INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING METHOD", paragraph numbered 4, from:

4. If no candidate achieves a majority, the "last place candidate" (defined as the candidate receiving the least number of first choice votes) is eliminated. In the case of a tie for last place, the first to be eliminated will be decided by lot. The votes of the voters who ranked the eliminated candidate as their first choice are redistributed to said voters' next-choice candidate(s) as indicated on their ballots. Any votes where there is no second choice indicated on the ballot go to an "exhausted vote" tally."

to:

4. If no candidate achieves a majority, the "last place candidate" (defined as the candidate receiving the least number of first choice votes) is eliminated.  If there are only two candidates, and there is a tie in the first choice rankings, then the second choice rankings shall be used to break the tie.  If there is a tie in both the first and the second choice rankings, then the winner shall be decided by lot.  If there are more than two candidates, in the case of a tie for last place, the first to be eliminated will be decided by lot. The votes of the voters who ranked the eliminated candidate as their first choice are redistributed to said voters' next-choice candidate(s) as indicated on their ballots. Any votes where there is no second choice indicated on the ballot go to an "exhausted vote" tally."

Bill's Comment: 

We need to clean up an ambiguity in the Bylaws about this that's caused a lot of turmoil at least once so far.  We've had a problem when there were only two people running for a single position (a staff Director position) and there was a tie in first place votes.  The dispute was about whether the winner should be chosen by looking at the second choice rankings on the ballots, or by lot.  The problem is that Article 15's specifying the use of IRV for single position races implies that second choice rankings matter, yet paragraph 4 above, in referring to a tie for last place, might also be interpreted (as the PNB decided at least once before) as meaning that a tie in last place is equivalent to a tie in first place when there are only two candidates and that the second place rankings should not be used.

The proposed amendment clarifies what the tie-breaking procedure should be when where there are only two candidates for a single position and there's a tie in first choice rankings.  It says specifically that second choice rankings should be used to break ties in such cases, unless there's also a tie in the second choice rankings.

Article 15, Section 1 says "Unless otherwise expressly provided in these Bylaws, all elections by the Members, Delegates, Directors, and LSBs, shall be conducted by the Single Transferable Voting method where there is more than one seat or position to be filled, and by the Instant Runoff Voting Method where there is only one seat or position to be filled."

Subsection B deals with the IRV voting method.  Paragraph 2 says "Each ballot shall list all candidates for the position, on which ballot the voter shall rank the candidates in order of preference (with 1 representing the voter's first choice, 2 representing the voter's second choice and so on)."  This implies that second choice rankings will be used to break ties in first choice rankings.  However, paragraph 4 says "... In the case of a tie for last place, the first to be eliminated will be decided by lot....".  In a previous Director election at one station, there was a big dispute about how this Director was chosen, the LSB chose to nullify the Director election, held an additional meeting to do the election again, and then the PNB chose to ignore the LSB's second election and settled the election by a coin toss.  This wasted a lot of time and caused a lot of hard feelings about the PNB's role in Director elections, all because of the ambiguity in the bylaws.

Ken's Comment: 

This deal of complexity leads to a lack of transparency in the procedure.  It takes someone well studied in the protocol to have any idea about what's supposed to happen.  A better solution would be to provide a rule that can be understood and followed by the average member.   How about: 

"In any phase of evaluating STV results, in the event of a tie, the next tier of choices are evaluated until the tie is resolved (if tied on first place votes, add up the 2nd choice votes, and so on.  It this does not resolve the tie, the winner will be selected by lot (flipping a coin or other agreed upon method of chance.)"

 

Bill's comment 2:

I agree with Ken on this -- he has simpler language which should take care of the problem in mentioned above, without making it too complex.  We would need to specify exactly where Ken's language should be added to the Bylaws, though.

Brian S's Comments:

i disagree with both proposals.  the first proposal, to decide ties in a two way race by the second choice, rewards pathological behavior by voters unusually savvy of bylaws nuance.  in a race between alice and bill, the savvy pro-alice voter would vote for alice as both the first and second preferences, while the good sport voter would vote alice first and bill second.  in a first round tie, the pathological voters triumph.  a coin flip is better.

the second proposal clarifies a defective bylaw rather than correcting it.  most reasonable people consider listener delegate elections too large to be counted by hand, so pacifica uses choiceplus pro.  as documented in the version 2.1 manual, the software only admits considering the previous round(s) to resolve last place ties.  rather than clarifying when resolution by lot is required and watching the software do otherwise for a tie, the amendment should prescribe choiceplus pro's previous round(s) resolution process, which flips a coin only if ties go back to the first round.

<http://votingsolutions.com/download/CPPro.pdf> p 4

lastly, a document from kewg.org suggests clarifying the section on the droop formula:

Be sure to always round down and never up.

If you refer to the Bylaws you may notice there is no reference to rounding down. In all probability this is an error, so please avoid (if possible) arguing about it at tally time and just round the number down. Someday the Bylaws will get fixed, and this error will be corrected, but for the time being we are stuck with the Bylaws as written.

<http://kewg.org/Chapter_5.pdf> p 20,

bylaws ARTICLE FIFTEENARTICLE FIFTEEN § 1 (A) (3)

so while you're at it...

Bill's comment 3:

I agree with Brian about specifying that we should round down, and had forgotten about this being left out of the Bylaws.  However, proposed amendment 4 (with or without Ken's change) deals only with ties in IRV voting (where there are only two candidates for a single position) is likely to apply only in elections in a delegates meeting for a staff PNB Director (where this problem came up before), and in such elections a computer is not needed due to the small number of ballots.

5.  Delete duplicate section and article headings.

Proposed amendment #5:

Delete duplicate Section headings and Article headings from the Bylaws.  For example, change:

   "SECTION 3. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF STATION REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTORSSECTION 3. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF STATION REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTORS"

to:

   "SECTION 3. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF STATION REPRESENTATIVE DIRECTORS"

Bill's Comment:

Starting with Article 5, Section 3 (the example above), many of the section titles (and at least one Article title- Art. 15) are duplicated in most versions of the Bylaws that have been distributed.  It looks like sloppy editing and makes one wonder if you have an official copy of the bylaws or a rough draft.  Let's remove the duplicates, even if it doesn't change the meaning, in order to clean things up.

Note:  These have been cleaned up in the version of the Bylaws at http://www.pacifica.org/governance/bylaws_rev.html   Perhaps the duplicate language was not in the versions formally approved in the past, and if this is the case then this amendment is not needed.  However, for several years versions of the Bylaws have been distributed with the duplicate headings, and if an amendment is needed to clean it up, then this amendment should take care of that.  I hope someone with knowledge of what exactly was approved in the past can clarify.

Bill's Comment 2:

As some people have pointed out, this amendment may not be needed, as it would just clean up errors in typing the Bylaws, and in some versions that are available the duplicate headings have been removed.  This also does not deal specifically with elections, but applies to a number of sections of the Bylaws.  Does anyone else feel strongly one way or the other whether this amendment is needed?

[Bill Crosier]

Woops -- I left off the Bylaws amendments from the draft agenda.

Here's the revised item 6:

6.  New Business (30 min.)

6A. Proposed Bylaws amendments dealing with elections (20 min.)

6B. Motion from Ken Aaron:  Send campaign booklets to all voters except those who have originated a request not to receive them.  Such a request will be received by the LES via post, email or phone. (15 min.)

I apologize for the confusion.

Bill

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:35:52 -0500
To: pnb_el...@googlegroups.com
From: Bill Crosier <kp...@crosierbiomed.com>
Subject: PNB Election Committee meeting tonight -agenda
Cc: Arlene Engelhardt <arl...@pacifica.org>, Renee Asteria <n...@pacifica.org>
Bcc:
X-Attachments:

[Ken]

PNB Election Com members

 

What I proposed was a motion, not a bylaws amendment.  This has to be implemented now, by the NES and ED, not sent out for debate amongst the stations.

Send campaign booklets to all voters except those who have originated a request not to receive them.  Such a request will be received by the LES via post, email or phone.

The NES proposal to withhold Candidate Booklets unless specially requested by the voter is a direct action to disenfranchise the voters, setting extra hurdles to be passed if they want to vote.  This is discriminatory, similar to a literacy test but in this case it's a cyber literacy test.  It will result in law suits.  The NES is not the Treasurer, she is the NES.  She is also not granted the privilege of interpreting the best way to augment or change our election procedures.  This NES has assigned herself powers and authority that are not stipulated in the bylaws.  The PNB did not instruct the NES to implement internet voting nor to compel the voters to opt-in for voting material sent by post.  Trying to select and rank nine candidates is a difficult task if done over the internet absent a special interface to accomplish the task.  It is a degradation of the voting procedure.  Saving money by failing to mail Candidate Booklets is absolutely penny wise and pound foolish.  Perhaps the NES and/or LES would care to cut back their compensation to help with any budget shortfalls.  Perhaps the ED can help out by cutting down on travel expenses.  Let's not penalize the voters for the budgetary failures of management.

 

At some point, this NES will be gone.  We in governance will be here to handle the consequences of her actions and inactions.  Allowing the NES to alter our election procedures without the explicit instructions and/or consent of the PNB is a blatant disregard of the responsibility to uphold the bylaws and to govern the Foundation.

 

Ken Aaron

---

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PNB Elections Committee" group.
To post to this group, send email to pnb_el...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pnb_election...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pnb_elections?hl=en.

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3061 - Release Date: 08/09/10 11:35:00