[Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East Coast Time

[Nicole Castor]

Mimi and others,

I understand all of that and don't necessarily disagree but the issue i had
raised was responded with the sga-transfer issue as an excuse for the
problems. If such a thing is cited as being a causal factor, it should be
supported with evidence instead of expecting onlookers to take their word
for it.

Regardless of that side-tracking issue, it really wasn't a valid excuse,
regardless of what really happened, for an administration who claims to
want to change everything then go and mess up in such ways to the point
that the actions would affect the integrity of the vote. In other words, if
their methods are better, then they should have illustrated this with a
seamlessly-orchestrated vote. If not last time, this time should be better.
If no one holds it accountable, though, it is likely to continue and i hope
you see my point in this.

Lastly, one of the big things i addressed is based on word i had received
that an individual had cited the statistics from that election to support
reasons to have a negative opinion of me, personally. If these elections
are not held properly and people are initially left off ballots, there are
conflicts-of-interest in campaigning for/against candidates, etc. but
especially if there were delegates unable to cast their votes- these
statistics can not be rightfully cited. Such faulty citations affect the
credibility of the individual making these citations and so it should be
noted, as an informative aid to others who may be influenced by such
citations of invalid statistics.

That is all except to add again that I hope to see a more democratic
process implimented in the next vote.

-N
On Jan 31, 2018 10:00 AM, "Mimi Newton" <mimi.newton at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Nicole -
> The CC recently received an email from Mike Feinstein reminding us of our
> Bylaws requirements for CC meeting minutes:
>
> Section 3-8 Minutes
>
> 3-8.1 Minutes of Coordinating Committee meetings shall consist of the
> date, time, location (where applicable) and attendance (including when
> leaving call), any modifications to the agenda, agenda items heard,
> decisions-taken (including who voted for, against or stood aside) and the
> text of all proposals, including amendments.
>
> His message stated:
>
> “First, we do *Not* include notes in our minutes.  The reason we don’t do
> that, is that we don’t want subjective content in our minutes, that then
> can be added by a majority vote, but does not represent hard facts but
> instead impressions,.”
>
> In addition, I think the CC tried - up to a point - to be somewhat
> discrete about the issues it was having at that time which I won’t go into
> here because I get all preachy about how we communicate with each other at
> the end of this message.  😜
>
> I do think it is fine to raise concerns about the last SGA vote to the
> vote administrators because, as you noted, we are approaching a new
> voting period.  But I don’t think it furthers the “values we claim to
> uphold” to impugn the integrity of the SGA Vote Administrators based on
> scant information that may be somewhat slanted to one perspective.
>
> I think we can all agree that we want the next Vote to go smoothly.  I
> think we can also agree that it would be really great if we could all think
> about how we address each other via email and social media.  Let’s all try
> to take the high road when it comes to hearing one anothers’ perspectives -
> be the change you want to be people!
>
> Thanks -
> Mimi
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 6:53 AM Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Vic,
>>
>> If it wasn't important enough to be recorded in minutes, why is it
>> important now? If it's not recorded, everyone beside the 14 mentioned have
>> no solid way to know. Even witness account is hearsay. Like I had said- I
>> heard that communication was attempted but the new SGAs wanted to not use
>> the regular system. This is also hearsay- but what do we have to go on
>> w/out anything on record?
>>
>> -N
>> On Jan 31, 2018 12:57 AM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Does it specifically mention refusal
>>>    to train the new admins?
>>>
>>> Our policy is typically not to *post* detailed notes, just record
>>> decisions and votes.
>>>
>>> I was there, and that's what happened -- they were asked and they
>>> refused.  There were about 14 other people on the call as well.
>>>
>>> -- Victoria
>>>
>>> --
>>> gpca-votes mailing list
>>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>>
>>> --
>> gpca-votes mailing list
>> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>>
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180131/61466a88/attachment.html>