[Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures

Wed Jan 31 15:47:34 PST 2018

Hi all,

Please remember that this list is just for discussion of specific SGA votes and specific voting logistics, and that the conversation is now drifting away from the specifics and into discussion *about* discussing, which will quickly spiral into uselessness.

Let’s stick to specifics of any given vote or issue at hand.

At this point, both points of view on this particular issue have had a chance to express themselves and we need to move on.

Folks can make their own assessments based on what has already been said.

Eric Brooks
SGA Vote Administrator

From: gpca-votes [mailto:gpca-votes-bounces at sfgreens.org] On Behalf Of james clark
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 3:09 PM
To: GPCA Discussion List for SGA Votes <gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
Subject: Re: [Gpca-votes] Fwd: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures

I find it problematic that when one points out flaws that can be rectified, they are crucified for doing so. If we cannot address flaws within the party in a constructive manner, how are we to progress? How do we grow when we would rather attack the person pointing out changes that would improve our voting system, rather than consider how it may impact people's perceptions of the party's integrety?

Not taking sides, but if we cannot accept critiques, then we are no better than the establishment we aim to challenge...

On Jan 31, 2018 2:59 PM, "Thomas Leavitt" <thomleavitt at gmail.com<mailto:thomleavitt at gmail.com>> wrote:
What is the goal of continuing this discussion?!?

All of you. Please stop. Seriously. No one in this argument "looks good" at this point. I seriously doubt anyone on this list was ever going to be persuaded to change their opinion about events, parties, personalities, etc. by argument here, and if anyone somehow made it onto this list entirely unaware of them, I suspect opinions were pretty much likely to be quickly formed based on other information / connections.

At this point, you're all just preaching to the choir or aggravating and demoralizing folks. Your points of view are clear. Be the bigger person. Let someone else have the last word. Please.

Thomas Leavitt

On Jan 31, 2018 1:52 PM, "Victoria Ashley" <victronix01 at gmail.com<mailto:victronix01 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>What do you mean when you say that "my side"

"The responses I've seen from the so-called "reformers" are weak"

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ps.
Sadie,

What do you mean when you say that "my side" should pony-up evidence or whatever? Are you under the impression, like many others I've heard from, that i am on a "side?"

I speak on behalf of myself, based on my own observations and i would encourage others to do the same, too.

-N
On Jan 31, 2018 9:56 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:

Ann,

The things you mention are not mutually exclusive. Quit straw-manning. Our internal election integrity is just as important as anything else.

-N
On Jan 31, 2018 9:53 AM, "Nicole Castor" <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:

Likewise, you're relying on others to give the benefit of the doubt in lieu of evidence. You claim to provide evidence, but provided none. I had heard things to the contrary and there is nothing to support either argument. What now? The SGA Admin transition wasn't even the real issue, but just an example which was brought up to excuse undemocratic and exclusionary behavior of the new SGA admins in their handling of the last vote. As a result, statistics and percentages are not valid and if cited, they should be noted as incomplete.

On Jan 31, 2018 9:45 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton at gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton at gmail.com>> wrote:

Nicole, you are not expressing dissent anymore, you are exploiting a strategic lack of paper trail in order to gaslight the entire listserv. In a court of law,  testimonies from a wide variety of witnesses are usually adequate for sentencing. Its time your side ponied up a bit more solid evidence of your claims instead of one person asserting their "understanding".

You can assert that I and the others on this listserv are liars if you want to. I will testify under oath if that's what's needed of me.
Sadie

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018, 09:32 Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:

Bob and others,

Bob is entitled to an opinion, but should never speak on behalf of others.

I have every right to address these issues as they are completely relevant to the upcoming SGA voting period.

The responses I've seen from the so-called "reformers" are weak, non-evidence to excuse their undemocratic and exclusionary practices in handing the previous vote.

For the delegates set to participate, let this be a beacon to any who may have had doubts or opinions which might not align with the GPCA status quo- showing that they are not alone.

-N

PS. It's only a waste of time when it's dissent, huh? Maintaining integrity in our values & purpose is never a waste of time.
On Jan 31, 2018 9:10 AM, "Bob Marsh" <bob at marsh.name<mailto:bob at marsh.name>> wrote:
Nicole has wasted enough of my time (and all of yours as well, I'm sure) so I'm giving her a coveted spot on my "delete immediately" email list... poof! gone.
cheers,
Bob

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 9:01 AM, Nicole Castor <nmcastorsilva at gmail.com<mailto:nmcastorsilva at gmail.com>> wrote:

What evidence is this exactly? That someone sent a request? I see no reply explaining a refusal to comply. How are we to know phone calls weren't made or that SGA admins other than Laura weren't contacted separately? It is my understanding that Brian Good was contacted, although this could be wrong.

If there is no actual evidence to indicate the claims which have been stated, the argument should cease.

This still does not address my original concern that the statistics of the SGA vote are not valid. The reason for this is that the voting was not completed since some SGA delegates were cut off three hours prior to the deadline. It makes no difference whether or not these delegates "agreed" to forfeit their votes. The point is- it affects the percentages in the results. Therefore, if someone out there was citing these percentages for whatever reason- the numbers would not be accurate.

I wish i had mentioned it when it happened, but i mention now because we are approaching a new voting period and it is my hope, as it should be for all others as well, that this next vote reflects more integrity in the values we claim to uphold.

-N
On Jan 31, 2018 7:36 AM, "Sadie Fulton" <sadie.fulton at gmail.com<mailto:sadie.fulton at gmail.com>> wrote:
The attached email is evidence of the new SGA administrators reaching out to the outgoing ones, requesting access and training. This is direct evidence against Nicole's claim that outreach was made in the other direction and refused.
No response was ever received for this email. If the claim that Tim and Mike were willing to train the new SGA administrators back in September when the request was made is to hold any water henceforth, let's see your evidence.
Sadie
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Wells <laurawells510 at gmail.com<mailto:laurawells510 at gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, Sep 6, 2017, 11:34
Subject: [gpca-cc] SGA Vote Administrator procedures
To: GPCA Coordinating Committee <gpca-cc at lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc at lists.cagreens.org>>
Cc: Tim Laidman <timlaidman at yahoo.com<mailto:timlaidman at yahoo.com>>, Brian Good <snug.bug at hotmail.com<mailto:snug.bug at hotmail.com>>

[This list of questions is going especially to long-time SGA Vote Administrators Mike Feinstein and Tim Laidman; to all CC members; and to Brian Good, a newly elected admin who is not on the CC.]

Hello all —

Now that we have a roster of 5 new SGA Vote Administrators (Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells), and 2 alternates (Eric Brooks and Mike Goldbeck), we need to get trained and up-to-speed.

Please reply with whatever help you can provide.

Here is a starter list of questions that will allow us to create procedures, a process for gaining access to the system, and training needed by the incoming SGA Vote Administrators. The last question applies to almost all of the others: who performs each of the tasks now, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the processes?

(1) How is the list of SGA delegates updated?
http://sga.cagreens.org/vote/contacts?cid=13

(2) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA email list, gpca-votes at cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at cagreens.org> (or gpca-votes at lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at lists.cagreens.org>)?

(3) How are SGA delegates added to the SGA voting pages/voting system?

(4) How do proposal pages get published on the website?

(5) How do candidate lists get published on the website? How do candidate applications/bios get published and updated?

(6) How are the SGA announcements set up? Announcements include the beginning of the discussion and voting periods, the upcoming end of the voting period, and the ending of the voting period.

(7) How are the results announced for yes/no votes and for ranked choice votes?

(8) Who does each of the above, and who can provide the new admins with access to each of the above?

(9) What else should be included on this list of questions?

NOTE that in researching the GP-US voting system, it appears that “Vote Administrators” are called “Floor Managers” and the job rotates among the Steering Committee members, with some duties performed by the Secretary of the Steering Committee. The system was described as a process of filling out (“plugging in”) the software forms online: checking boxes for kind of vote, discussion period, listing candidates; and pasting in proposals, background, resources required, references. It’s possible that the CA system, which apparently was originally based on the same system as the national, may have become more complicated over the years, but still do-able by people who are not necessarily highly technical.

Thank you all.
Laura Wells
CC member and one of the newly-elected SGA Vote Administrators

_______________________________________________
gpca-cc mailing list
gpca-cc at lists.cagreens.org<mailto:gpca-cc at lists.cagreens.org>
http://lists.cagreens.org/listinfo/gpca-cc_lists.cagreens.org

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto:gpca-votes at sfgreens.org>
https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes

--
gpca-votes mailing list
gpca-votes at sfgreens.org<mailto: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/20180131/70ce43e9/attachment-0001.html>