Voting Procedure

[Geo]

Beth posted "Sept 28 Meeting Minutes" today. Thanks Beth.

Below you will find a list of quotations from the meeting minutes.
These statements imply that "the group" voted and apparently decisions
were made. Although the minutes are prefaced with "All decisions and
votes taken tonight are provisional.", it is not at all clear that the
items discussed are still open for vote by the entire garden group
membership.

Beth, when you use the words "the group" do mean the entire garden
group or just the handful of folks who were able to attend the
meeting?

Is it correct that everything is still open for discussion and that no
final voting has actually occurred?

Can we please clarify exactly how voting is / will be handled for all
final decisions.


Quotations from "Sept 28 Meeting Minutes"

"For our garden, the group voted and agreed to an annual membership
fee of $20 and a fee of $10 per garden bed (aka plot)."

"We voted and agreed that we should have the soil tested in several
locations throughout the garden before planting begins."

"We voted and agreed to provisionally carry over all decisions from
our previous meeting to be added into the by laws, except for the
tiered voting."

"Glen was concerned with the tiered voting and will propose his
alternative at the next meeting, at which time we will re-vote."

"The group re-voted to keep the organic requirement for both gardening
practices and naming."

"We voted and agreed on assignment of plots."

[Geo]

Is anyone who attended the recent Sunday garden meetings going to
answer my questions? Or are we already gravitating toward secrecy
here?

I have no idea how many folks attended the recent garden meetings, but
I sincerely doubt that the number is anywhere near the number of
members of this forum (currently 26). BTW, shouldn't meeting minutes
include all those in attendance, including who voted for what?

As those in attendance at one of the earliest meetings agreed, all
voting whether online or in person was to be considered equivalent.
Has that changed?

[Beth Maxim]

Hi George,

 

I only check my email twice a week or so, so I am just reading through all my emails. No secrets, just keeping busy.

 

Here is our decision-making process effort to keep things moving since we have so much to tackle.

 

1.       At a meeting, those in attendance discuss an "item" (rule, idea, etc.) for a limited amount of time. Then we then take a collective vote on the item. If there is agreement (whatever the formal term is for someone to 'motion,' another person to 'second' and then 'all in favor...') I write it down and accept it as "provisionally agreed" and we move on to the next item.

 

2.       After the meeting, I will type up all of the notes listing all of our decisions and post the meeting minutes to this forum.

 

3.       It is expected that everyone who is interested but was unable to attend the meeting read through the minutes, and if they would like to suggest a different approach for an item, please let us know (via this online forum) before the next meeting. Dave will then add it to the agenda of a future meeting for discussion.

 

a.       For example, although we already provisionally agreed on the Membership and Tiered Voting Structure (which would not go into effect until membership dues are paid), at the next meeting Glen will propose an alternative structure. Those in attendance will re-vote on the issue. I will then post the results in the meeting minutes for the rest of this online group to review.

 

4.       If no one asks to revisit any items from the meeting minutes, at the next meeting we will make a motion to accept all items listed in the previous meeting from “provisionally accepted” to "accepted." If there is an exception, we will carry all decisions over except that exception.

 

Here are some other items of note that I believe should be considered:

 

·         This method is keeping things as streamlined as possible while still giving everyone a chance to review all items whether they were able to attend a meeting or not, and raise concern when necessary.

 

·         It has been noted on multiple occasions that there are several people on this online group who are very interested in having a garden plot but are not interested in attending all of these meetings and are willing to accept the rules, by laws, requirements, etc., whatever they may be. So to ask that all people in this online group be required to vote on all items on a weekly basis (as I think you may be implying below) could quite possibly become more of a nuisance to many of the 26 people than they would prefer. It is certainly not our intent to make people feel they are required to participate in these discussions order to have a garden!

 

·         Even after an item has been "accepted," if we find that we need to revisit it for whatever reason, say, 6 months down the line, we certainly can. Given that we don't know how many members the garden will ultimately have, how much our expenses will be, and even where the garden will be located or how big it will be, it's unreasonable to think nothing will need to change between now and when the garden is "up and running."

 

You're absolutely right about absence of names of those attending the meetings in the weekly minutes. I'd noticed that missing myself as I was typing them up and I ask that everyone at future meetings please write your name in my blue notebook so I can include that in the meeting minutes. As for who voted for what, I think that would not only take extra time to document during our meetings, but also double my already 3-page long notes. Maybe I am just being lazy, but I would hope we don't have to go to this extreme. I can confidently say, however, that everything that was "accepted" in the past two meetings passed with very close to 100% agreement, most with 100% of those in attendance.

 

I will be more diligent in defining “the group.” Without going back and re-reading all of my notes, I’m sure I’ve probably used this term interchangeably to refer to both those in attendance at meetings and all those included in this online group.

 

I hope this has addressed all of your questions below and helps to clarify our decision process for everyone.

 

Cheers,

Beth

[Geo]

Thanks Beth. The feedback is appreciated, but I get the distinct
impression that those of us who prefer to participate online rather
than in-person are being relegated to second class status.

The voting procedure you describe was not my understanding during the
last meeting I attended when everyone (in attendance) agreed that all
garden group members would have their votes counted equally, whether
done in person or online. Having to object to something that has
already been "voted on" (in a meeting not attended) is not the same
thing as voting.

This is unfair, unacceptable and it greatly skews decisions in favor
of community garden members who have the leisure to attend meetings
(ie. those who don't work at a full-time job).

"So to ask that all people in this online group be required to vote on
all items on a weekly basis (as I think you may be implying below)
could quite possibly become more of a nuisance to many of the 26
people than they would prefer."

This is not what I was implying. If you want to vote, vote. If you
don't want to vote, don't vote. This should apply the same for online
voters as it does for voters in meetings. A majority of voters
(whether online or in-person) will carry the vote, not a majority of
garden group members. This is how democracy works everywhere. Anyone
not interested need not be bothered to vote, just like the many
Americans who won't bother to vote on November 4th. Decisions are made
by the majority who vote, not the majority who are eligible to vote.

Bottom line Beth: whatever is discussed in meetings needs to be posted
here for a vote. Anyone at a meeting who will not or cannot vote
online can inform you of their vote and you can post it for them. I
fear that to do anything less may turn the community garden into
another amenity in Harmony that is run by and for the benefit of just
a tiny minority.

I hope that we can seriously reconsider this position for the long-
term benefit of the entire community.

> *         This method is keeping things as streamlined as possible while

> still giving everyone a chance to review all items whether they were able to
> attend a meeting or not, and raise concern when necessary.
>

> *         It has been noted on multiple occasions that there are several

> people on this online group who are very interested in having a garden plot
> but are not interested in attending all of these meetings and are willing to
> accept the rules, by laws, requirements, etc., whatever they may be. So to
> ask that all people in this online group be required to vote on all items on
> a weekly basis (as I think you may be implying below) could quite possibly
> become more of a nuisance to many of the 26 people than they would prefer.
> It is certainly not our intent to make people feel they are required to
> participate in these discussions order to have a garden!
>

> *         Even after an item has been "accepted," if we find that we need to

> > "We voted and agreed on assignment of plots."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[rescueg...@onebox.com]

George, even with spouses, there are still less than fifty people even interested in a garden.  Who knows if they (we) all will actually get and use a plot successfully.  That sounds to me like this garden is already run by and for a "tiny minority".  

Where in Beth's post does it say that all votes are not counted equally?  Did I miss something?  The only thing different from what was discussed at the first meeting, is that if 15 people at a meeting vote for something, and noone or only one person votes no online, then it is automatically ratified without a second vote at the next meeting.  All online votes are counted.  If more people vote no online than voted yes at the meeting, the measure will not pass.  Every measure that is discussed and put to a vote at a meeting, is not "Passed".  It is voted on provisionally, and ratified if the total number of yes votes after counting online votes is a majority.  Where is the inequality?  Your vote counts just as much as anyone else.  You can even ask for the vote to not be ratified because more discussion is needed.  You will then be given a chance to make your case.  After that, a new vote will be taken. 

Keep in mind that you will run into the tyrranny of the the majority, just like I did.  I am opposed to the two tierd voting, and think it will be cumbersome.  Guess what, everyone else except Glen was for it, so it passed.  However, as Beth stated, Glen wants further discussion, so he will be given a chance to make his case.  If he can change a majority of minds, then we'll choose a new system.  If not, the system stands.  Even then, if you want to revisit this in 6 months, you will be given a chance to do so.

So three things.

1. Democracy is always unfair to the minority. Think 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what to serve for lunch.

2. We are all feeling our way along on this and trying to come up with a system that works for everyone.

3. In every group, the process is always skewed in favor of those who are able to put in the time and effort, whether that is fair or not.  How can it not be?

So I think the sytem we have so far is acceptable and fair, as far as such systems are able to be. 

We are not "Migrating toward secrecy."  What the heck about a garden could you possibly need to keep secret?

Everyone I've spoken to is of the opinion that everyone who wants to be heard wil be heard, and everyone who wants to vote will be counted.   


--
David Leeman
rescueg...@onebox.com - email
201-406-0244

[Geo]

Dave, I think we are both missing something. Would it be too much to
ask to have each item to be voted on listed, followed by a list of
folks who voted so far (including totals)?

For example:

------------------------------------------------------
Item 1: The size of unit garden plots will be 4' x 4'.

For: Against:

Bob J. Fred G.
Sally P. Jane D.
Tim R.
====== ======
2 3 = 5 votes

Item 2: The size of unit garden plots will be 10' x 10'.

For: Against:

Bob J. Jane D.
Fred G.
Sally P.
Tim R.
====== ======
4 1 = 5 votes

Item 3: ...

The vote on these items will be open until 10/13/2008.
Please cast your votes. New totals will appear soon.
------------------------------------------------------

Then after the online people vote, the same items can be listed again
with the new final tally.

Won't this make it easier to track what the issues were and the level
of interest in each?


On Oct 6, 8:20 am, rescuegreyho...@onebox.com wrote:
> George, even with spouses, there are still less than fifty people even interested in a garden.  Who knows if they (we) all will actually get and use a plot successfully.  That sounds to me like this garden is already run by and for a "tiny minority".  
> Where in Beth's post does it say that all votes are not counted equally?  Did I miss something?  The only thing different from what was discussed at the first meeting, is that if 15 people at a meeting vote for something, and noone or only one person votes no online, then it is automatically ratified without a second vote at the next meeting.  All online votes are counted.  If more people vote no online than voted yes at the meeting, the measure will not pass.  Every measure that is discussed and put to a vote at a meeting, is not "Passed".  It is voted on provisionally, and ratified if the total number of yes votes after counting online votes is a majority.  Where is the inequality?  Your vote counts just as much as anyone else.  You can even ask for the vote to not be ratified because more discussion is needed.  You will then be given a chance to make your case.  After that, a new vote will be taken. 
> Keep in mind that you will run into the tyrranny of the the majority, just like I did.  I am opposed to the two tierd voting, and think it will be cumbersome.  Guess what, everyone else except Glen was for it, so it passed.  However, as Beth stated, Glen wants further discussion, so he will be given a chance to make his case.  If he can change a majority of minds, then we'll choose a new system.  If not, the system stands.  Even then, if you want to revisit this in 6 months, you will be given a chance to do so.

> So three things.
> 1. Democracy is always unfair to the minority. Think 3 wolves and a lamb voting on what to serve for lunch.
> 2. We are all feeling our way along on this and trying to come up with a system that works for everyone.

> 3. In every group, the process is always skewed in favor of those who are able to put in the time and effort, whether that is fair or not.  How can it not be?
> So I think the sytem we have so far is acceptable and fair, as far as such systems are able to be. 
> We are not "Migrating toward secrecy."  What the heck about a garden could you possibly need to keep secret?
> Everyone I've spoken to is of the opinion that everyone who wants to be heard wil be heard, and everyone who wants to vote will be counted.   ...
>
> read more »
>
> --
> David Leeman
> rescuegreyho...@onebox.com - email

> On Oct 4, 11:59 pm, "Beth Maxim" wrote:
> > Hi George,
> >
> > I only check my email twice a week or so, so I am just reading through all
> > my emails. No secrets, just keeping busy.
> >
> > Here is our decision-making process effort to keep things moving since we
> > have so much to tackle.
> >
> > 1.       At a meeting, those in attendance discuss an "item" (rule, idea,
> > etc.) for a limited amount of time. Then we then take a collective vote on
> > the item. If there is agreement (whatever the formal term is for someone to
> > 'motion,' another person to 'second' and then 'all in favor...') I write it
> > down and accept it as "provisionally agreed" and we move on to the next
> > item.
> >
> > 2.       After the meeting, I will type up all of the notes listing all of
> > our decisions and post the meeting minutes to this forum.
> >
> > 3.       It is expected that everyone who is interested but was unable to
> > attend the meeting read through the minutes, and if they would like to
> > suggest a different approach for an item, please let us know (via this
> > online forum) before the next meeting. Dave will then add it to the agenda
> > of a future meeting for discussion.
> >
> > a.       For example, although we already provisionally agreed on the
> > Membership and Tiered Voting Structure (which would not go into effect until
> > membership dues are paid), at the next meeting Glen will propose an
> > alternative structure. Those in attendance will re-vote on the issue. I will
> > then post the results in the meeting minutes for the rest of this online
> > group to review.
> >
> > 4.       If no one asks to revisit any items from the meeting minutes, at
> > the next meeting we will make a motion to accept all items listed in the
> > previous meeting from "provisionally accepted" to "accepted." If there is an
> > exception, we will carry all decisions over except that exception.
> >
> > Here are some other items of note that I believe should be considered:
> >
> > *         This method is keeping things as streamlined as possible while
> > still giving everyone a chance to review all items whether they were able to
> > attend a meeting or not, and raise concern when necessary.
> >
> > *         It has been noted on multiple occasions that there are several
> > people on this online group who are very interested in having a garden plot
> > but are not interested in attending all of these meetings and are willing to
> > accept the rules, by laws, requirements, etc., whatever they may be. So to
> > ask that all people in this online group be required to vote on all items on
> > a weekly basis (as I think you may be implying below) could quite possibly
> > become more of a nuisance to many of the 26 people than they would prefer.
> > It is certainly not our intent to make people feel they are required to
> > participate in these discussions order to have a garden!
> >
> > *         Even after an item has been "accepted," if we find that we need to
> > revisit it for whatever reason, say, 6 months down the line, we certainly
> > can. Given that we don't know how many members the garden will ultimately
> > have, how much our expenses will be, and even where the garden will be
> > located or how big it will be, it's unreasonable to think nothing will need
> > to change between now and when the garden is "up and running."
> >
> > You're absolutely right about absence of names of those attending the
> > meetings in the weekly minutes. I'd noticed that missing myself as I was
> > typing them up and I ask that everyone at future meetings please write your
> > name in my blue notebook so I can include that in the meeting minutes. As
> > for who voted for what, I think that would not only take extra time to
> > document during our meetings, but also double my already 3-page long notes.
> > Maybe I am just being lazy, but I would hope we don't have to go to this
> > extreme. I can confidently say, however, that everything that was "accepted"
> > in the past two meetings passed with very close to 100% agreement, most with
> > 100% of those in attendance.
> >
> > I will be more diligent in defining "the group." Without going back and
> > re-reading all of my notes, I'm sure I've probably used this term
> > interchangeably to refer to both those in attendance at meetings and all
> > those included in this online group.
> >
> > I hope this has addressed all of your questions below and helps to clarify
> > our decision process for everyone.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Beth
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
> >
> > [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Geo
> > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:07 PM
> > To: HarmonyFLgardens
> > Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 143] Re: Voting Procedure
> >
> > Is anyone who attended the recent Sunday garden meetings going to
> >
> > answer my questions? Or are we already gravitating toward secrecy- Hide quoted text -

[Kerul Kassel]

Although your post seemed to be addressed to Dave, it went to the entire
list, so I'll assume this is up for group discussion.

What is the purpose in keeping track of who voted how for what, rather than
simply the total votes yes or no? Recording and making public how someone
voted can easily create discomfort for those who vote against popular
opinion, and therefore influence their vote due to social pressure. When
one votes in almost any election, at least in this country, one's discretion
and privacy regarding their voting decision is protected (excepting those in
government positions voting on issues/bills on behalf of an electorate).

Additionally, while at the meeting we do vote by a show of hands, it creates
considerably more work for the secretary to record every single name on
every single vote, and therefore against our desire to make this
organization simple, unless you can provide a very good reason.

JMO.
Kerul

-----Original Message-----
From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Geo

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 8:44 PM
To: HarmonyFLgardens

[Nancy]

I agree with Kerul....I thought we were trying to keep this as simple as
possible. The added work for the secretary is not necessary. We'd loose
some of the people we now have attending as they would be put out there for
more ridicule from people who do not attend meetings.
Nancy

Nancy Snyder
7023 Five Oaks Drive
Harmony, Florida 34773-6005
407-574-5943
321-749-3182

[rescueg...@onebox.com]

George, your concern is on the agenda. All you need to do is convince a majority of members you're right and it will carry.

--
David Leeman
rescueg...@onebox.com - email

201-406-0244



-----Original Message-----
From: Geo
Sent: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 15:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
To: HarmonyFLgardens

Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 154] Re: Voting Procedure


First, I don't send private emails to anyone regarding issues I
discuss in an open forum like this. That would be contrary to my view
that transparency and accountability are important to the success of
any group project like the community gardens or Harmony in general.

Kerul, Nancy and Dave, I think your advocacy for keeping some of the
activities of this group "under raps" (ie. who voted for what) is
misplaced. If these votes were for political office or for hot topics
like gay marriage I might understand your position. But I don't think
we can get much more mundane than how big garden plots should be or
whether ours will be purely organic.

What you appear to be suggesting is that those who attend meetings
should have their votes kept secret while those who vote online should
not. This apparent double standard seems pretty silly to me,
especially considering that Kerul offered to record entire meetings
then post them here. BTW, whatever happened to that idea?

Anyway, what you folks are proposing (partially secret voting) can't
work in practice (as is). Why? Because doing so would allow for the
possibility that someone could vote privately in a meeting then again
online.

We are not changing the world here folks. We are just trying to
accommodate the maximum number of busy people who are already used to
communicating in a modern world and who do not have the time for
meetings in real-time.

In addition to your support for secret ballots, you also made
reference to the secretary's time (Hmmm, anyone ever wonder if
"secret" is the root of secretary?). How about what follows as a
compromise?

Since Beth is willing to list everyone who attended a meeting, can we
agree that anyone who attends a meeting may not also vote online for
items that were up for vote during the meeting? This way, we need not
worry about double voting. Those who wish to vote anonymously may vote
at meetings and those who vote online can rest assured that their
votes have equal weight.

Thus for example, what I previously suggested would become:

------------------------------------------------------
In attendance at the meeting of 10/7/2008:

Bill F. (not eligible to vote, abstains)
Bob J.
Fred G.
Greg G. (not eligible to vote, abstains)
Jane D.
Sally P.
Tim R.

Item 1: The size of unit garden plots will be 4' x 4'.

Yes: 2 No: 3 = 5 votes, 2 abstentions

Item 2: The size of unit garden plots will be 10' x 10'.

Yes: 4 No: 1 = 5 votes, 2 abstentions

Item 3: ...

The vote on these items will be open until 10/14/2008.

Please cast your votes. New totals will appear soon.
------------------------------------------------------

Would this work for everyone?


On Oct 7, 1:28 pm, rescuegreyho...@onebox.com wrote:
> Based on the everyone should be heard rule, I have asked Pam to put George's idea on the agenda in the "If we have time" slot.  If time allows, George can make his case.  If time does not allow, it will go on the "to be discussed" slot for the next meeting.  If George cannot make the next one, he can post or he can ask someone to make his case for him, and we'll vote then.
>  
> I am for keeping a vote tally, as that means that if a measure passes with a ten to one majority, only nine online no votes will keep it from passing.  Everyone will know right off whether a measure passes or not.  I am very against posting names, both for logistical and for social reasons. 

> interested in a garden.  Who knows if they (we) all will actually get
> and use a plot successfully.  That sounds to me like this garden is

> already run by and for a "tiny minority".  

> > Where in Beth's post does it say that all votes are not counted

> equally?  Did I miss something?  The only thing different from

> what was discussed at the first meeting, is that if 15 people at a meeting
> vote for something, and noone or only one person votes no online, then it is

> automatically ratified without a second vote at the next meeting.  All

> online votes are counted.  If more people vote no online
> than voted yes at the meeting, the measure will not pass. 

> Every measure that is discussed and put to a vote at a meeting, is not

> "Passed".  It is voted on provisionally, and ratified if the total

> number of yes votes after counting online votes is a majority.  Where

> is the inequality?  Your vote counts just as much as anyone else. 

> You can even ask for the vote to not be ratified because more discussion is

> needed.  You will then be given a chance to make your case.  After

> that, a new vote will be taken. 

> > Keep in mind that you will run into the tyrranny of the the majority, just

> like I did.  I am opposed to the two tierd voting, and think it will be
> cumbersome.  Guess what, everyone else except Glen was for it, so it
> passed.  However, as Beth stated, Glen wants further discussion, so he
> will be given a chance to make his case.  If he can change a majority

> of minds, then we'll choose a new system.  If not, the system

> stands.  Even then, if you want to revisit this in 6 months, you will

> be given a chance to do so.
> > So three things.
> > 1. Democracy is always unfair to the minority. Think 3 wolves and a lamb
> voting on what to serve for lunch.
> > 2. We are all feeling our way along on this and trying to come up with a
> system that works for everyone.
> > 3. In every group, the process is always skewed in favor of those who are

> able to put in the time and effort, whether that is fair or not.  How

> can it not be?
> > So I think the sytem we have so far is acceptable and fair, as far as such
> systems are able to be. 

> > We are not "Migrating toward secrecy."  What the heck about a garden

> could you possibly need to keep secret?

> > Everyone I've spoken to is of the opinion that everyone who wants to

> be heard wil be heard, and everyone who wants to vote will be counted. 

> > On Oct 4, 11:59 pm, "Beth Maxim" wrote:
> > > Hi George,
> > >

> > > I only check my email twice a week or so, so I am just reading
> through all

> > > my emails. No secrets, just keeping busy.
> > >

> > > Here is our decision-making process effort to keep things moving
> since we

> > > have so much to tackle.
> > >

> > > 1.       At a meeting, those in attendance discuss an
> "item" (rule, idea,

> > > etc.) for a limited amount of time. Then we then take a collective
> vote on

> > > the item. If there is agreement (whatever the formal term is for
> someone to

> > > 'motion,' another person to 'second' and then 'all in favor...') I
> write it

> > > down and accept it as "provisionally agreed" and we move on to the
> next

> > > item.
> > >
> > > 2.       After the meeting, I will type up all of the
> notes listing all of

> > > our decisions and post the meeting minutes to this forum.
> > >

> > > 3.       It is expected that everyone who is

> interested but was unable to

> > > attend the meeting read through the minutes, and if they would like
> to

> > > suggest a different approach for an item, please let us know (via
> this

> > > online forum) before the next meeting. Dave will then add it to the
> agenda

> > > of a future meeting for discussion.
> > >

> > > a.       For example, although we already
> provisionally agreed on the

> > > Membership and Tiered Voting Structure (which would not go into
> effect until

> > > membership dues are paid), at the next meeting Glen will propose an

> > > alternative structure. Those in attendance will re-vote on the issue.
> I will

> > > then post the results in the meeting minutes for the rest of this
> online

> > > group to review.
> > >
> > > 4.       If no one asks to revisit any items from the
> meeting minutes, at

> > > the next meeting we will make a motion to accept all items listed in
> the

> > > previous meeting from "provisionally accepted" to "accepted." If
> there is an

> > > exception, we will carry all decisions over except that exception.
> > >

> > > Here are some other items of note that I believe should be
> considered:
> > >

> > > *         This method is keeping things as
> streamlined as possible while

> > > still giving everyone a chance to review all items whether they were
> able to

> > > attend a meeting or not, and raise concern when necessary.
> > >

> > > *         It has been noted on multiple occasions
> that there are several

> > > people on this online group who are very interested in having a
> garden plot

> > > but are not interested in attending all of these meetings and are
> willing to

> > > accept the rules, by laws, requirements, etc., whatever they may be.
> So to

> > > ask that all people in this online group be required to vote on all
> items on
> > > a weekly basis (as I think you may be implying below) could quite
> possibly
> > > become more of a nuisance to many of the 26 people than they would
> prefer.

> > > It is certainly not our intent to make people feel they are required
> to

> > > participate in these discussions order to have a garden!
> > >

> > > *         Even after an item has been "accepted,"

> if we find that we need to

> > > revisit it for whatever reason, say, 6 months down the line, we
> certainly

> > > can. Given that we don't know how many members the garden will
> ultimately

> > > have, how much our expenses will be, and even where the garden will
> be

> > > located or how big it will be, it's unreasonable to think nothing
> will need

> > > to change between now and when the garden is "up and running."
> > >

> > > You're absolutely right about absence of names of those attending the

> > > meetings in the weekly minutes. I'd noticed that missing myself as I
> was

> > > typing them up and I ask that everyone at future meetings please
> write your

> > > name in my blue notebook so I can include that in the meeting
> minutes. As

> > > for who voted for what, I think that would not only take extra time
> to

> > > document during our meetings, but also double my already 3-page long
> notes.

> > > Maybe I am just being lazy, but I would hope we don't have to go to
> this

> > > extreme. I can confidently say, however, that everything that was
> "accepted"

> > > in the past two meetings passed with very close to 100% agreement,
> most with

> > > 100% of those in attendance.
> > >

> > > I will be more diligent in defining "the group." Without going back
> and

> > > re-reading all of my notes, I'm sure I've probably used this term

> > > interchangeably to refer to both those in attendance at meetings and
> all

> > > those included in this online group.
> > >

> > > I hope this has addressed all of your questions below and helps to
> clarify

> > > our decision process for everyone.
> > >

> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Beth

> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
> > >
> > > [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Geo

> > > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:07 PM

> > > To: HarmonyFLgardens

> > > Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 143] Re: Voting Procedure
> > >

> > > Is anyone who attended the recent Sunday garden meetings going to
> > >

> > > answer my questions? Or are we already gravitating toward secrecy-
> Hide quoted text -
> >

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Kerul Kassel]

Do others agree with George?  Excepting him I have not heard anyone else suggesting that not recording who votes for what means that we’re attempting to keep our votes “secret” or “ ‘under raps"’ ”.    

 

As far as I’m concerned, no salient reason has yet been proposed as to why recording who votes how is a good idea, especially considering the group is willing to revisit decisions at meetings.

 

For the record, I never “offered to record entire meetings then post them here”.  I simply suggested, as an logistics option for recording the gist of a meeting, in response to George’s request for that, btw, that if someone had a digital recorder and knew how to upload those files, it could be possible.  However, the group did not seem in favor of the idea at the time.

 

Kerul

[thelew...@earthlink.net]

I don't see the relevance of knowing who voted for what.  I brought up the point also that an

-----Original Message-----
From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Kerul Kassel
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:26 AM
To: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com

[thelew...@earthlink.net]

I don't see why anyone needs to know who voted for what.  I brought up the issue that we are in the process of forming this group.  If people are too busy to attend the meetings (or at least most of them) then when will you have time to harvest your garden plot?  I have a daughter, work 2 days at a job 1 hour away from here, run a business from home and have a husband that travels out of town frequently, oh and I have a 65 pound dog that needs walks constantly, but I am making the time to help get this garden going.  Positive thinking is a must and leaving politics out of it would be nice.  I have heard several people are considering abandoning the garden group becasue they just don't want to be subjected to unnecessary banter.  We can do this everyone and maybe have a laugh along the way.  Peace out, Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Of Kerul Kassel
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:26 AM
To: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 156] Re: Voting Procedure

[rescueg...@onebox.com]

I'm not sure what "unnecessary banter" means, but it seems like we are getting away from the KISS theory. Keep It Simple Silly!  (Not the exact phrase)  I have been pushing for less rules, less costs, less everything except actual gardening.  If people are actually thinking of bailing out because we're too complicated, we need to simplify. Let's keep this in mind at the upcoming meeting.

--
David Leeman
rescueg...@onebox.com - email
201-406-0244



-----Original Message-----
From:

[Jim Warren]

Well said Lisa.  My view is that if you cant find time to attend a meeting to make a vote, then have someone proxy it for you.

Lisa is right, if you can’t make time for a meeting, which have been held at different times / days to try an accommodate the majority, then maybe a garden plot is not for you. If minutes are sent out, and there is a subject you feel you want a say, then attend, or have someone speak on your behalf.

Names should not be a requirement of the voting system. This should be a communal fun activity. Let’s not make it political. I see enough of that garbage on the TV.

 

Jim

<BR

[Susan Josephson]

I do not see a need for names to be attached to votes.  I am not in a position to attend meetings right now but I have a general belief that the indivduals who are attending are reasonable people.  I appreciate the willingness of others to get the ball rolling on projects like this.  I appreciate the consideration of receiving minutes by e-mail and the opportunity to vote via e-mail seems like a very thoughtful adjustment but I would be comfortable even if that opportunity were not available.  After all, the garden is a voluntary activity and if it was going in a direction that didn't meet my needs, I would have the choice of opting out.

Susan

[Geo]

I agree with Lisa that we really need to try to put whatever
personality differences we may have aside and try to understand each
other's positions purely from a cool and rational perspective. This is
really not about who or who doesn't agree with me. It's about how to
best handle group information, not only for our immediate benefit but
also for the benefit of future residents who may want to more fully
understand the decision making process that went into this worthwhile
amenity.

You know, it seems that some of us are reading too fast or skimming
too much. There have been more than a half dozen posts about listing
"who voted for what" since my post stating that we don't need to list
who voted for what. Why are we still arguing about something that we
are all in agreement about? I think perhaps the problem is that I
replied on a new thread (with the same name) that I think Dave
inadvertently created while everyone else has been replying on the old
thread.

The truth is that no one cares who voted for what while the point is
that we still need a simple way to combine the old and the new style
of voting that is fundamentally fair to everyone involved.

Dave has made the point many times that we need to keep things simple.
I couldn't agree more, but we still need a fair process in place for
the long term.

When I read the meeting minutes, it is not obvious what was voted on,
what is still open to be voted on, how much support there is for each
item in question and, most importantly, that my vote would be given
equal weight with those who attended the meetings I missed.

So please go back and reread my last post that explains why we don't
need to list who voted for what:

http://groups.google.com/group/harmonyflgardens/browse_thread/thread/7af410d16730c91e?hl=en

Then can we agree that such an approach makes the proceedings easier
to understand and fairer to everyone?

On Oct 8, 3:22 pm, Susan Josephson <stsu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I do not see a need for names to be attached to votes.  I am not in a position to attend meetings right now but I have a general belief that the indivduals who are attending are reasonable people.  I appreciate the willingness of others to get the ball rolling on projects like this.  I appreciate the consideration of receiving minutes by e-mail and the opportunity to vote via e-mail seems like a very thoughtful adjustment but I would be comfortable even if that opportunity were not available.  After all, the garden is a voluntary activity and if it was going in a direction that didn't meet my needs, I would have the choice of opting out.
>
>
>
> Susan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Warren
> Sent: Oct 8, 2008 12:33 PM
> To: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 160] Re: Voting Procedure
>
> Well said Lisa.  My view is that if you cant find time to attend a meeting to make a vote, then have someone proxy it for you.
>
>
>
> Lisa is right, if you can’t make time for a meeting, which have been held at different times / days to try an accommodate the majority, then maybe a garden plot is not for you. If minutes are sent out, and there is a subject you feel you want a say, then attend, or have someone speak on your behalf.
>
>
>
> Names should not be a requirement of the voting system. This should be a communal fun activity. Let’s not make it political. I see enough of that garbage on the TV.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> From:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf Ofthele...@earthlink.netSent:Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:47 AMTo:harmonyf...@googlegroups.comSubject:[HarmonyFLgardens: 158] Re: Voting Procedure
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> I don't see why anyone needs to know who voted for what.  I brought up the issue that we are in the process of forming this group.  If people are too busy to attend the meetings (or at least most of them) then when will you have time to harvest your garden plot?  I have a daughter, work 2 days at a job 1 hour away from here, run a business from home and have a husband that travels out of town frequently, oh and I have a 65 pound dog that needs walks constantly, but I am making the time to help get this garden going.  Positive thinking is a must and leaving politics out of it would be nice.  I have heard several people are considering abandoning the garden group becasue they just don't want to be subjected to unnecessary banter.  We can do this everyone and maybe have a laugh along the way.  Peace out, Lisa
>
>
>
>
>

> -----Original Message-----From:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com [mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com]On Behalf OfKerul KasselSent:Wednesday, October 08, 2008 7:26 AMTo:harmonyf...@googlegroups.comSubject:[HarmonyFLgardens: 156] Re: Voting Procedure

>
>
>
> Do others agree with George?  Excepting him I have not heard anyone else suggesting that not recording who votes for what means that we’re attempting to keep our votes “secret” or “ ‘under raps"’ ”.    
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
> As far as I’m concerned, no salient reason has yet been proposed as to why recording who votes how is a good idea, especially considering the group is willing to revisit decisions at meetings.
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>

> For the record, I never “offered to record entire meetings then post them here”.  I simply suggested, as...
>
> read more »