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

[james clark]

No one contacted me to inform me about the voting. Being unhoused I don't
always get to check my emails. Thankfully I did check before voting was
over. I tend to avoid these threads unless it's urgent due to the arguing,
power plays, and lack of transparency. I know this doesn't reflect the
party as a whole, but makes trying to see the actual information difficult.
Critiques ate often being met with hostility, ableist attacks, etc. This
should be addressed in a constructive manner. We have a lot of work to do
in order to build or voting block, and continuous infighting, is
counterproductive.

As is having the spokesperson publicly fighting with other greens, some for
standing up for party values, some for valid reasons. These arguments
should not be done in public forums, as it will only serve to push people
out of the part, and discourage people from getting involved.

Let us focus on the work that needs to get done in public, and handle
internal disagreement in private. Maybe even finding people to act as
mediation teams when that option is available.

On Jan 30, 2018 10:28 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:

This is incorrect.

1) All active counties were contacted, and all delegates were contacted.

2) All delegates, counties and applicants received the same instructions.

3) Spokespersons are not barred from personally supporting specific
candidates.

4) With regard to the problem of the vote closing 3 hours early, my email
clearly noted that problem and specifically called on anyone who had not
voted by the deadline and who wanted their votes to be counted, to email a
reply saying so. No one responded to request this so we didn’t do an
adjusted count. And as I noted before and Nicole just reiterated, and
adjusted count would not have changed the results.

It is also important remind everyone that the reason we were forced to
switch to a new voting system (with inevitable first time glitches) is that
the previous Vote Administrators refused to provide the **new** Vote
Administrators access to the controls of the existing voting system and SGA
email list.

Eric Brooks



*From:* gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] *On Behalf
Of *Nicole
Castor
*Sent:* Monday, January 29, 2018 9:32 PM

*To:* GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
*Subject:* Re: [Gpca-votes] IMPORTANT: SGA Voting Closed Early At East
Coast Time



In Anticipation of the Upcoming SGA Election,

I am rehashing this thread to bring up an important point before we
approach the next vote.

I wanted to raise this concern when this thread was active, however,
numerous problems with the last vote made me not even want to bother:

*Several people were left off the original ballot announcement, having not
recieved special, exclusive instructions to cc applications to an
additional email address, but instead, followed the explicit instructions
included on the inform list announcement for CC elections

*The voting page was sent out from a gmail address rather than an official
gpca-dot-org address

*A GPCA Spokesperson showed public support for one candidate over another,
which is a conflict of interest

*At least one active county was not informed of the SGA

*Finally, this email thread explains the voting deadline had not been set
to Pacific time, and some delegates were left out of the vote

Eric Brooks explains that the numbers did not matter because the results
already showed the winners, regardless. I understand that this would be
correct but the concern I kept to myself at that time was that the actual
statistics would not be recorded accurately.

This might not seem like a big deal but for a party which boasts voting
integrity and all related issues, this lack of concern of such things
should be addressed.

If statistics of the results were used in citation, afterward, that
citation would not be valid. In other words, one could not legitimately
claim one candidate received x-percent of a vote because the voting was
never complete.

Integrity is doing the right thing, even when it seems it doesn't matter-
not just when it's convenient, or benefits your agenda. This and future
internal party elections should reflect this.

-Nicole Castor
GP Sacramento County

PS
I would also like to take this opportunity to reach out to anyone who may
have any questions concerning me, or the work I do on our County Council. I
have been rather surprised and disturbed by some of the things I have been
hearing coming back to me lately. I prefer to address issues, rather than
whisper behind backs because addressing is the only way to actually have
the possibility of an explanation.

On Nov 20, 2017 5:59 PM, "C. A. B." <cabouldin at msn.com> wrote:

So do we have to go back on the OpaVote to see the results or will they be
sent out?



On 11/20/2017 11:59 AM, R Schwichtenberg wrote:

Spam detection software, running on the system "gateway.dolorespark.org",
has identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original
message has been attached to this so you can view it or label
similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
the administrator of that system for details.

Content preview:  Eric, please open the 🗳 vote box for me... Rj
Schwichtenberg
   Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 20, 2017, at 7:39 AM, Bob Marsh wrote: > >
Eric,
   > Is there a way to see the results like there was with the old system? >
   > Bob > > >> On Nov 19, 2017, at 21:25, Eric Brooks wrote: >> >> Hi again
   all, >> >> The Vote Admins have just discovered that the SGA voting
software
   closed the vote at midnight *East* coast time rather than west coast
time.
   >> >> *HOWEVER* if you did not get a chance to vote and were planning to
  just before midnight please note that both winning candidates had already
  received enough first round votes by the time the vote was closed, that
even
   if any one other candidate had received all remaining votes, the
candidates
   who won tonight would still have won - so the early closing of voting
will
   not affect the actual results. >> >> *IMPORTANT* If you still wish to
have
   your votes counted in the anonymous totals so that they change the totals
   (even though this will not change the results) reply to this email by
midnight
   tonight and we will arrange for your votes to be included in the totals.
  >> >> Sorry for any difficulties you had personally with the OpaVote
system.
   This is our first time using this new voting software and there were
bound
   to be some bugs. >> >> Eric Brooks >> >> From: Eric Brooks >> Sent:
Sunday,
   November 19, 2017 8:46 PM >> To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes >>
Subject:
   Please Contact Eric Brooks If You Have Any Problems With Your SGA Vote
Tonight
   >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am available all night tonight for anyone who has
problems
   voting on the OpaVote site in the SGA election. >> >> I’ll be sending
out
   a vote reminder at 9pm which all of you who have not yet voted should
receive
   (CHECK YOUR SPAM FOLDERS IF YOU DON’T SEE IT). >> >> *TO CONTACT ME* >>
   >> Email me at: brookse32 at hotmail.com >> >> and /or call me at: >> >>
415-756-8844 <(415)%20756-8844>
   >> >> Eric Brooks >> -- >> gpca-votes mailing list >>
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
   >> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%
2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%
7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa
aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ
BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0 > > NOTICE:
   Due to [...]

Content analysis details:   (6.9 points, 5.0 required)

 pts rule name              description
---- ---------------------- ------------------------------
--------------------
 0.1 DOS_RCVD_IP_TWICE_C    Received from the same IP twice in a row (only
                            one external relay; empty or IP helo)
 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in
                            digit (efgreen.1[at]juno.com)
 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail
provider
                            (efgreen.1[at]juno.com)
 0.8 SPF_NEUTRAL            SPF: sender does not match SPF record (neutral)
 0.0 RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL      RBL: SORBS: sent directly from dynamic IP
address
                            [70.211.15.239 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net]
 2.0 RCVD_IN_PBL            RBL: Received via a relay in Spamhaus PBL
                            [70.211.15.239 listed in zen.spamhaus.org]
 0.2 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not
necessarily valid
 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC           Delivered to internal network by host with
                            dynamic-looking rDNS
 1.2 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid
 0.0 UNPARSEABLE_RELAY      Informational: message has unparseable relay
lines
 1.0 FREEMAIL_REPLY         From and body contain different freemails
 0.2 HELO_MISC_IP           Looking for more Dynamic IP Relays

The original message was not completely plain text, and may be unsafe to
open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus,
or confirm that your address can receive spam.  If you wish to view
it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor.

-- 
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
https%3A%2F%2Flist.sfgreens.org%2Fcgi-bin%2Fmailman%
2Flistinfo%2Fgpca-votes&data=02%7C01%7Ccabouldin%40msn.com%
7C19e392de4b22487c76a708d530554115%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaa
aaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636468065089279719&sdata=Edcv15zUxSuzYhUzs5H1axmN8QbvEQ
BdUtftG49lcbk%3D&reserved=0




--
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/20180131/7b92013c/attachment-0001.html>