[NSRCA-discussion] Election

Sun Dec 23 10:31:57 AKST 2018

Larry,

With those emails it is surprising the absolute blatant disregard within the NSRCA BOD regarding the security and fairness of the election process. 

Amazing! 

Tony Frackowiak 

> On Dec 23, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Ken Dunlap via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> Lot of splitting of atoms here to make something patently wrong sound right or get minimized. Bottom line to me is that if the vote is still going on, no one especially those running should have any insight or visibility into the vote. No one should make any statements about the vote until it is closed. Period. End of sentence. No debate.  That knowledge affects behavior and that will influence votes.
> 
> Frankly, not going to chime in again because this sounds like such a breach of trust that it saddens me.
> 
> Get Outlook for iOS
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 12:41:23 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> Tony,
>  
> I am aware of two of the District VP communication e-mails sent to their prospective District members.
>  
> One said it was close, while the other said it was tied. I am on four of the district e-mail groups.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Larry Diamond
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Tony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 11:44 AM
> To: Cliff Bradford <cliff357b at gmail.com>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> Pete,
>  
> Please explain why any counting of the votes was even done prior to the close of voting. Also, I never received any information that the vote was close. Right there it is improper as the K-Factor is supposed to be the only “official” form of communication to the entire membership. 
> 
> Tony Frackowiak 
> 
> On Dec 23, 2018, at 8:56 AM, Cliff Bradford via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> If and only if the Board members met in secret and discussed the election I could see a issue that the election possibly wasn’t fair and it could be concluded that it was tainted, 
> But that isn’t what happened!!! 
> Any member worthy of a position in the nsrca is following the election, it’s not a secret, EVERYONE KNOWS ITS CLOSE.  The discussion during a board meeting that results were close and might require a runoff is/was made public. Because the discussion was made public I see no issue or unfair advantage to any member.The Board can’t change anyone’s vote. 
>  
> And By the Way : 
> MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!
>  
>  
>  
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 9:40 AM Vogel, Peter <Peter_Vogel at intuit.com> wrote:
> I would agree with you if that were the case Dave, but...
>  
> Disclaimer: I was not at the board meeting in question however...
>  
> If the knowledge that “the vote is very close” had been kept secret to the board, THEN we would have an ethics issue as it would allow the incumbent candidate to sway things.  However, the action the board took was to tell *everyone* via this list, district lists, AND Facebook “the vote is close, voting closes on Dec 31st” to encourage participation of the entire membership.  In my mind that’s not trying to sway the vote as it is telling everyone the same thing, regardless of which candidate they support.
>  
> Get Outlook for iOS
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of davel322--- via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 8:23 AM
> To: 'Cliff Bradford'; 'General pattern discussion'; 'Larry Diamond'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> This email is from an external sender.
>  
> If one candidate is aware of the vote count, and another candidate is not aware of the vote count, is that fair?  Does one candidate have an advantage?
>  
> If one candidate has an unfair advantage due to structural administrative process/error…..the election is tainted.
>  
> Regards,
> 
> Dave
>  
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> On Behalf Of Cliff Bradford via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 10:25 AM
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; Larry Diamond <ldiamond at diamondrc.com>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> There are only 410 nsrca members, voting electronically assures you must be logged in and can only vote once. I’m sure any mail in ballots will be verified for membership and authenticity. As long as we don’t receive 411 or more ballots I see no issue. 
> I think it is the boards duty to keep track of the election process. To think that it’s possibe to sway the election by knowing its a close election is silly. In fact it may incourage a higher participation percentage and that is all good. 
> The board cannot change the ballots.
> We are a very small group and getting smaller because of things like this. I’m good with the election as it stands, if the board caves to the peer pressure and tosses this one, it would not change my vote. Would it change yours?  That would be more damaging than the board discussion about how close the election was. 
> Perhaps we should contact the FBI to investigate any possible consequences!!!
>  
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 8:07 AM Larry Diamond via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> Almost feels like a lynching of the election.
>  
> If the real time vote tallies were not compromised, would everyone still think the Election should be voided? I would not. However, we may still have an integrity or ethics issue the BoD needs to deal with it, if a BoD member made such a comment as it is reckless to imply knowledge of the ongoing results. If it was not a BoD member that made the comment, then freedom of speech prevails and it’s a non-issue.
>  
> We need to know the facts. The BoD needs to take control and investigate it. If the facts are that the count was compromised, then the results should be voided and a new voting period began.
>  
> Best Regards,
>  
> Larry Diamond
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ken Dunlap via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2018 8:08 AM
> To: David Harmon <k6xyz at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> +1
>  
> This is wrong at so many levels. Let’s void this election. You just don’t start tallying ballots before the election closes.
>  
> Ken Dunlap
>  
> Get Outlook for iOS
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of David Harmon via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 11:07:03 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> Plus 2 or 3 or 16…..jeeeze…
>  
> David Harmon
> NSRCA 586
> AMA 5053
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jon Bruml via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 9:54 PM
> To: Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net>; Frackowiak Tony <frackowiak at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> Yes agreed 
>  
> We will have to nullify the election and start a new process 
>  
> Jonathan Bruml
> Techstyles
> www.techstyles.com
>  
> From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf of Pete Cosky via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 7:52 PM
> To: Frackowiak Tony; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Election
>  
> It may be the end of days because I agree with Frak. 
>  
> There is absolutely no reason why the data should have been available let alone discussed. 
>  
> The big question now is how do we recover? 
> 
> Sent from my mobile device
> 
> On Dec 22, 2018, at 9:52 PM, Frackowiak Tony via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> I’m sorry that you don’t see the impropriety here. You have an incumbent officer running for re-election able to see just how close the election is and then being able to drum up more votes for himself.
>  
> This election is now tainted. No one should be able to see the vote tally before the voting period has ended. The election should be nullified, the party or parties involved in releasing the vote tally prior to the conclusion of voting should be censured and removed from the process. The election should be held again and the voting results sent to an outside party. After the end of their normal term no decisions should be made by the BOD until a proper election can be held and the newly elected officers installed.
>  
> Should we as NSRCA members not be allowed a fair election?
>  
> Tony Frackowiak
>  
>  
> On Dec 22, 2018, at 5:41 PM, Monte Richard <mrichard at compassengineering.com> wrote:
>  
> The discussion was centered around the fact that the voting was close to encourage the district Vice Presidents to encourage the members in their districts to cast their votes. It appears to have worked as this election looks like it will have the highest voter turnout in NSRCA history. Certainly a lot higher then the previous election which only had a voter turnout of 12 members.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Dec 22, 2018, at 6:09 PM, Tony Frackowiak via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrcaorg> wrote:
> 
> I was looking at the minutes of the December 12th NSRCA BOD meeting. During that meeting according to the minutes there was a discussion about the current vote count in the election. 
>  
> Isn’t voting open until the end of the month?  And isn’t there a longer time for mailed in ballots to be received? Why are the votes being tallied and discussed by the Board before the end of the voting period?
>  
> That is highly unethical and smacks of voting fraud. At the very least it sounds like an attempt to influence the results. 
>  
> I will await a reply. 
>  
> Tony Frackowiak 
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> 
> (c) 2018 Compass Engineering & Consultants, LLC. All rights reserved. This electronic transmission, and any attachments hereto, is intended only for the use of each individual recipient named above and may contain information belonging to the sender that is confidential, proprietary, is subject to copyright, constitutes a trade secret or is legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately (i) notify the sender, (ii) permanently delete the original and all copies of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto, and (iii) destroy all printouts of this electronic transmission and all attachments hereto. Please note that electronic transmissions to and from the sender may be monitored by the sender's employer. Thank you for your cooperation.    
>  
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> --
> Cliff
> --
> Cliff
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20181223/b4df8a51/attachment.html>