USBCHA voting procedures

[Eileen Stein]

I'm looking for some feedback from USBCHA members about the way voting is carried out on proposed by-law changes.

 

Under the current by-laws, changes to the by-laws can only be made at the annual meeting, with 45 days advance notice of any such proposal to the membership. That's fine, except what it means is that members who aren't going to be at the meeting (which is most of the membership) have to vote by proxy. That's bad, because they have to vote yes or no on the proposal ahead of time. Then if anyone comes up with an amendment to the proposal at the meeting, either the presiding officer has to disallow the amendment, which kind of undercuts the deliberative process, or the proxy votes have to be thrown out, because the proposal then is different from what they voted on when they mailed in their proxies, which means those voters are disenfranchised. Either course of action is going to seem unfair to a lot of people. Instead of actually voting yes or no on the proxy, you can send in a different type of proxy which designates someone to cast your vote at the meeting, but that means you have to know for sure that someone is definitely going to be there who understands just how you would want to vote on any change that might be made to the proposal, and is willing to vote for you. That's not possible for a lot of people.

 

This is not a good system, IMO. Either voting should ONLY be done at the meeting, or it should ONLY be done by mail, but not by a mixture of the two.

 

I'm thinking of proposing a by-law amendment for next year which would change this method of voting. Since most members don't go to the annual meeting, and since notice by mail of any proposed by-law change is already required, what I would propose is that the voting be done by mail also. Paper ballots would be mailed out for by-law change proposals just as they are for electing the directors, and members would vote yes or no on them and mail them back in as they do their director ballots.

 

What we would lose by this is a chance to have debate on the proposal at the annual meeting. That's too bad, but it's not as much of a disadvantage nowadays, since the internet is available for discussion and debate. Someone who wanted to propose a by-law change could invite discussion on the subject on these boards and/or on sheepdog-l and other mailing lists (much as I'm doing right now), and thereby get input to help in making the proposal as well-designed as possible. Then after the proposal was formally put before the membership, members could discuss it informally via internet prior to voting.

 

It seems to me this system would be better than the piecemeal system we have now, with its potential for uncertainty, controversy and disenfranchisement of proxy voters. The HA made a similar change regarding election of directors a few years ago, and it seems to have worked out well. But before putting such a proposal forward, I'd like to hear from other folks who may have views on this subject.

 

Thanks to all who are still reading.

[juliepoudrier]

Hi Eileen,

As I was reading the rules for voting after receiving my ballots in the mail I was struck by the things you mentioned--that I could vote, but my vote would be invalidated if any amendments were made at the meeting. And while I know people who are going to the finals (and perhaps will attend the meeting) I really don't know that any of them think the same way I do and so would know what I would want to do if the proposal(s) were amended. Not to mention that I can see a very few people being asked to be proxies for a whole bunch of other people, which would essentially give those few proxies a lot of clout.

 

Anyway, I think you have a good idea. It's would be unfortunate to lose out on public discussion, but there are forums where that could take place prior to any mail-in vote, and I think that would be better than having my vote suddenly not count for reasons beyond my control.

 

J.

[toney]

What about following the by-law procedure as written and then taking any discussion at the Finals as an "amendment" to the original motion. Finals attendees could vote on the proposed AMENDMENT to the main motion, but the final resolution (the main motion and any amendments voted on at the Finals) could be paper ballot to the general membership and sent out after the Finals?

 

I am trying to balance parlimentary procedure and yet allow for increased democratic input.

 

Terry

[Eileen Stein]

That would be a possible approach. One problem with it would be that it would need a second mailing, and the cost of that is not insignificant, I bet. That might make it unpopular. Another thing, if I'm understanding you right, is that only the people at the meeting would determine (via amendment) what the final form of the proposal was. Ideally any changes they made would be for the better, but I can imagine cases where most of the membership might feel they had changed it for the worse. I like the idea of discussion at the meeting, though, and in a way it's too bad more members don't go to the annual meeting, but I don't suppose it's realistic to expect that they would, especially since the meetings are going to be in South Dakota for the next three years.

 

Any other thoughts?

[toney]

Bulk mailing significantly reduces postage costs, and using postcards to vote rather than full letter sized mail would reduce costs also. here's another thought...two postcards: Postcard one: With the original form of the motions listed as per by-laws. Postcard Two: The list of original motions brought before the membership to vote on, and any other "amendments" voted on at the yearly meetings: In other words, the orginal form of any motion brought before the membership as per the by-law requirements and any changes made to the original motions by the people who debate it at the Finals meeting would be listed on the second card. The membership then could choose to vote on the original motion or the amended motion. Voting could simply be circling the number on the postcard and signing and dating the card and sending it back in an envelope. Am I making myself clear? probably not.

[J. Williams]

Eileen,

 

We had quite an extended discussion about the proposed by-law change on another forum and while this specific issue didn't come up, it is something that concerns many. Thanks for asking for feedback.

 

Personally, I do not like the idea of membership votes being invalidated by amendments, which could be done with the intent to eliminate a popular, but opposing, majority. A proposal should stand or fall on its own merit or lack thereof. If it can't, then perhaps it's unnecessary altogether or needs some major reworking to serve in the true best interest of the membership.

 

I'm leaning towards mailing only for lack of a better alternative, but do like the idea of an "amendment mailing" post discussion. Even though it would come with a cost, it may well be worth it.

[Bill Fosher]

In the interest of democracy, I'd say that we need to come up with a way of deciding these matters that do not require members to travel to the finals.

 

However, at some point you have to simply say that there may be circumstances where every member might not have a vote on the final outcome. Here in New England, where we treasure our funky and inefficient town meetings, there's no way that you could put off a decision on the town operating budget if it was amended on the floor of town meeting. But not everyone can be there for the discussion.

 

Some school districts have moved to an "official ballot" system, which works more or less as follows:

 

Items to be deliberated (the warrant) are published and a meeting is scheduled. At the floor of the meeting, the items are discussed and deliberated, and may be amended. The final warrant, containing the items as amended at the meeting, are put to a vote on paper ballots in local elections in the various towns that make up the district.

 

This does add a step and an expense, and it tends to make the extremists on any controversial question have more power -- ie, the ability to frame the question that is ultimately put to voters.

 

But in a universe of imperfect solutions, it's not a bad one altogether.

[J. Williams]

Does anyone have an idea/best guesstimate, what percentage of the membership attends the annual meeting? Just curious.

[Margaret M Wheeler]

To me, some form of mail in vote makes sense. I've been thinking about this for a few days now and have come up with a few considerations:

 

• I think I have recieved one newsletter from the USBCHA. How many are published annually? If the voting procedure is changed to a mail in vote, I think it is very important to share relevant information and discussion in print as well as electronically. To me, lists and boards are useful for gathering a lot of information from a lot of people. However,discussion can quickly become diffuse and disorganized. Print is a good way to summarize and focus what has been said.
   
  I also think that if a messageboard or a e-list is used for this sort of decision making it needs to be carefully moderated and archived, and the USBCHA board of directors needs to assume responsibility for ensuring that this is done. The fluid quality of this format presents special problems with regard to accountability. A message board was integral in helping the lawsuit against the JRTCA gain momentum. However, when the case came to trial and interest grew in the statements made on the board, the owner of the board consistently denied having archived posts.
   
  Another concern for me is the question of participation. Certainly, a lot of voting members are being unintentionally excluded under the current procedure. Who and how many would be excluded under the change Eileen proposes? Being the team manager of my son's soccer team has given me a whole new insight regarding the computer literacy of my fellow suburbanites. I have had to change my assumption that by and large we are computer savvy. What proportion of USBCHA voting members are not online?
  

[Eileen Stein]

Margaret, I didn't envision internet discussion as being anything official. I thought of it more as the kind of informal discussions that are now held when folks get together at trials, only more focused (perhaps) and with wider geographical participation. I don't think it's in the cards to have a USBCHA-managed message board or email list set up -- in fact, I have a vague impression that something like that was proposed by a director at the directors' meeting at the finals last year and was tabled or voted down.

 

It's certainly true that not all HA members are online. (Although many more are online than those whose names you see on posts -- a lot of folks like to get trial info via the internet, for example, but have no desire to engage in conversation.) But the Handlers Association has more than 500 members, I believe, and I would say that less than a quarter of that number were at the last annual meeting -- about 100, it looked like. So under the present system only a fraction are participating in any kind of formal discussion as it is. If a majority of members went to the annual meeting, I'd think it would be better to limit voting to the annual meeting. But in an area as big as North America, where realistically only a minority of members can go to the annual meeting, it seems that ensuring maximum opportunity to vote and have your vote counted would probably be more important than ensuring maximum opportunity for discussion.

 

The three-step procedure that Terry and Bill are suggesting is intriguing, and I'm trying to think about it from all angles.

[Bill Fosher]

Grrr ... just pulled out my ballot to discover that I have missed the deadline for voting unless I go to the finals. That's another thing I'd like to see changed. I can't imagine why those ballots need to be in a full month before the annual meeting.

[J. Williams]

That's too bad Bill, especially being that Directors can't be voted on at the meeting at all, just proposed By-Law changes. Bummer.

 

Bill Wrote:

 

Grrr ... just pulled out my ballot to discover that I have missed the deadline for voting unless I go to the finals...