RE: [HarmonyFLgardens: 150] RE: [HarmonyFLgardens: /] Re: Voting Procedure

[rescueg...@onebox.com]

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. 


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



-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy
Sent: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:20:49 -0400
To:
Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 150] RE: [HarmonyFLgardens: /] Re: Voting Procedure


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


-----Original Message-----
From: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:harmonyf...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kerul Kassel
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:14 AM
To: harmonyf...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: /] Re: Voting Procedure


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
Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: 148] Re: Voting Procedure


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
> 201-406-0244
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geo
> Sent: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
> To: HarmonyFLgardens
> Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: /] Re: Voting Procedure
>
> 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.
>
> 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 -

[Geo]

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. 

> 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
> > 201-406-0244
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geo
> > Sent: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 20:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
> > To: HarmonyFLgardens
> > Subject: [HarmonyFLgardens: /] Re: Voting Procedure
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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 -