Folks
When i read an e-mail like this, it give's me hope for Pacifica, after 17 years of struggle.>>>Peace and Love>>>Billy Ray
billy edwards <bredwards@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "billy edwards" <bredwards@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bredwards2002@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: FW: [FWD: Re: [pac_elections05] Fwd: Angela Lauria's comments on DQ'ed ballots
at WPFW]
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 22:17:22 +0000
>From: cjgatewood@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Jane Gatewood)
>To: aciebyrd@xxxxxxxxxxx (Acie Byrd), inpow7@xxxxxxxxxxx (Ambrose Lane Sr),
> robrobin@xxxxxxxxx (Rob Robinson), zasha121@xxxxxxxxx (Zarinah
>Shakir)
>CC: ayomeansjoy@xxxxxxxxx (Ayo Handy Kendi), bredwards@xxxxxxxxxxx
>(Billy Ray Edwards), cowgirlcade@xxxxxxxxx (Cade Campbell),
>wolfelsb@xxxxxxxxx (Carol Wolfe), dan.logan@xxxxxxx (Dan Logan),
>dmckethan@xxxxxxx (Donnie), hakooom@xxxxxxxxxxx (Hakam Takash),
>MrJBrown@xxxxxxx (Jim Brown), joeclsb@xxxxxxxxx (Joe Chiara),
>joni.eisenberg@xxxxxx (Joni Eisenberg), tohealdc@xxxxxxxxx (Joni
>Eisenberg), KalonjiOlu@xxxxxxx (Kalonji Olusegun),
>luzette_king@xxxxxxxxxxx (Luzette King), luzette_king@xxxxxxxxxxx
>(Luzette King), DcProud@xxxxxxx (Mark Roberts),
>markberman1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Mark Berman), norvmart10@xxxxxxxxx
>(Norberto Martinez), pinchback_ron@xxxxxxxx (Ron Pinchback),
>iska666@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Thomas Ruffin Jr)
>Subject: [FWD: Re: [pac_elections05] Fwd: Angela Lauria's comments on DQ'ed
>ballots at WPFW]
>Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 04:16:02 -0400
>
Esteemed PNB Members:
I know there is very little time available before the upcoming meetings in
New York, but I would ask that you please find
time to consider the comments
in the attached forwarded message from Mr. Phelps (in response to Angela
Lauria's original March 16th message).
The matter of the WPFW-PNB-election appears to once again be coming before
the PNB for consideration. I do not know if you will be permitted to vote on
motions related to this matter but I hope that you will take the opportunity
to publicly acknowedge the important facts raised by Mr. Phelps, most
notably:
1. The culture we develop as we build Pacifica is important!! The fact that
"we have business to take care of" does not preclude the importance of basic
rights and due process.
2. We have an "inclusive democracy" method, not winner take all. The STV
voting method prescibed in our bylaws is designed to ensure that any
sizeable minority has a voice on the governing body.
3. The problems with this election are no different than those in Florida
2000 and Ohio
2004.
I have remained silent on this issue since February, when my motion to
rescind the listener-sponsor portion of our PNB election was defeated. It is
regrettable that almost an hour of that meeting was occupied by a technical
side-question and that our LSB was denied the opportunity to consider the
substance of the real issues.
You now have an opportunity to reflect fully on the salient facts in this
matter and move to correct this festering problem. As noted by Mr. Phelps:
... Our Bylaws, our Mission, justice, due process and basic fairness, and
the development of a fair and just organizational culture are at stake with
this matter.
Jane Gatewood
--
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
--
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at
http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp
To: pac_elections05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, board@xxxxxxxxxxxx, MavMedia@xxxxxxx
From: PhelpsMediation@xxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006 15:43:50 EDT
Subject: Re: [pac_elections05] Fwd: Angela Lauria's comments on DQ'ed ballots at WPFW
In a message dated 5/25/2006 5:36:19 AM Pacific Standard Time, cmcb007@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"Angela E. Lauria" <alauria@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: "Angela E.
Lauria" <alauria@xxxxxxx>
To: <MrJBrown@xxxxxxx>,
<wolfelsb@xxxxxxxxx>,
<inpow7@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<zasha121@xxxxxxxxx>,
<aciebyrd@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
<robrobin@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: ! Please respond - From Jim Brown
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 22:55:54 -0500
All,
Carol was able to scan and email me the ballots - thanks Carol.
The situation is pretty much as I suspected. I have reviewed this with 3 other former election supervisors. Some agreed with Jim's decision and some disagreed. Which goes to show my point - election supervisors make lots of tough decisions and there are not clear right and wrong answers in all cases.
For Pacifica even the appearence of election impropriety can be deadly to our development. And there are right and wrong answers in most cases. Keeping the ballots secure is most important and when the person making the decision appears to be part of the group that benefits from a questioned decision we have a serious problem.
Personally, if I were the election supervisor for this contest, I would not have DQed either ballot but would have merely thrown out the 2 votes ranked 6 on the ballot with dup ranking. That said, at this point, I would not advocate counting these ballots. If I were asked to do so it would be the equivalent of throwing out the previous election and running a new one. Worse, it would set the precedent that valid, though
undesirable, decisions made by election supervisors can and should be argued and over-ruled. As a past and potentially future election supervisor that is not a position I would like to be in.
I am greatly disappointed by this attempt to justify what happened at WPFW. Making an assumption that the decisions made were valid, prejudices the whole discussion. Given what you have written here I would suggest that you should not be an election supervisor in the future.
Elections are in some ways like basketball games. Those of you following the NCAA tourney know I had a good night tonight. GW won -
unexpectedly - in overtime. But would they have won with a different referee? Are they better than UNC - more deserving? Surely not. Both are excellent teams - just as I know all PNB candidates were worthy candidates.
Elections are not sporting events. This ignores the most important point of STV and IRV voting, which is to make sure any sizeable minority has a voice on the governing body, "inclusive democracy", not winner take all. "They were all worthy" so what does it matter that they were all elected from the same faction and the minority from WPFW was left voiceless on the PNB?
What scares me most about this and so many things that happen in Pacifica and on the PNB and LSBs is that for too many folks involved, winning is all that seems to matter, not our Bylaws, not our Mission, not justice, not due process or
even basic fairness and clearly not the development of a fair and just organizational culture.
How in the hell is this any different than Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004? The culture you develop as you build an organization is so important. And it appears to me that despite lip service to progressive politics and process and tokens in that direction, winnning and winner take all seem to dominate the practice of so many.
Basic rights and due process are too much trouble for some, "we have business to take care of", the tyranny of the majority has taken a firm hold at several LSBs and thus the PNB, with strong representation from those tyrannical LSBs. The majority at an LSB can usually elect 3 of the 4 PNB members. And in this situation all four. It appears that the LSBs collude with each other to not question each others violations of minority rights, "You don't
question what we do and we won't question what you do" and to hell with the victims of your "majority rule", even if the victim is our Bylaws, our Mission, our moral fiber, along with the individuals. Winning and control is primary for too many in our midst, but winning without truth and justice is not a real or lasting victory in any progressive culture.
Like referees, election supervisors often effect outcomes and like athletes, I believe voters and candidates must accept the election supervisors decisions even when they are debatable. As is the case here.
This is laughable if it wasn't so sad that people try to pass off such weak arguments to win a bad point. Simple logic
blows this out of the water. I speak to this from extensive experience as a soccer referee. I am President of a High School referee association for the last 5 years and have been District Director of Assessment for 1400 referees in Northern California. I have refereed over 1200 games up to College Div. 1 level.
There is a qualitative difference between making a call when several people are moving very fast and making contact with each other and reviewing a writing on a piece of paper. If there is a clean chain of custody the writing is going to stay the same, forever. You can't go back and recreate the the action on the field or court. Even instant replay has its limitations since you may not have the same angle that the referee had that made the call and you may have a better angle. However, the kind of judgment calls made when people are in physical competition is not analogous to reviewing a writing on a piece of
paper. I also have extensive experience doing that as an attorney for over twenty years. They are two completely different processes.
Elections are full of tough calls. While I believe the voter intent on both ballots was clear - Jim was not looking for intent - he DQed all ballots that did not follow the given instructions. This, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, is a valid reason to DQ ballots. It is not, in my opinion, the best reason but it is a valid one and was followed consistently throughout the contest. For that reason, after reviewing the ballots I can say that while the results may have been different if I were the election supervisor, I do not see a reason to pursue any further remedy for this contest.
Robert's Rules states On page 402 the answer to the question regarding the WPFW election is there with total clarity: "Small technical errors, like the misspelling of a word or
name do not make a vote illegal if the meaning on the ballot is clear."
It is the duty of the election supervisor to opt for inclusion not exclusion whenever possible. But let us not forget that the person making the decisions was not an independent election supervisor. I say this not personally knowing the person and making no judgment on his credibility. I am not accusing him of conscious wrong doing. The real problem was with the majority that opted for control and winning over principles of fair elections.
Please feel free to forward this response (without changes) to any interested party and as always I am available via phone or email for questions.
You may do the same with my comments. And let's just imagine what would have happened had the PNB had the courage to do what was right and ordered a new election early on? We would have this behind us and our listeners and activists would have the feeling that if there is a problem it will be taken care of fairly and quickly. This develops loyalty and a progressive culture.
I remember in DC when the PNB sent it back to the LSB majority that dominated the election, for another review, it was clear that that was a waste of time. It was akin to sending the decision on what to do with the chicken back to the fox. But it temporarily got it off the PNB plate and protected the co-dependency between the LSBs to not question each other on
the PNB.
How great would it have been if the WPFW majority would have put principles before winning and said "as a progressive organization it is most important to have clean election results so in the spirit of the Pacifica Mission we are going to redo the PNB election and do it right this time" This may have cost one of them a seat on the PNB and what is more important, that seat or developing a truly progressive practice and culture? Which option is better for Pacifica in the short and long run? That is of course if the goal is to advance Pacifica and not just the local majority's power.
Unfortunately the WPFW PNB election is but one example of this practice ( the WBAI endless suspension of Paul De Rienzo is another example, I don't condone what Paul did and I believe he deserved some sanction, as do some others in New York, but they are part of the majority
and untouchable, and I believe that the conduct of the majority at WBAI in this situation has caused more damage to Pacifica than what Paul did.) that is destroying Pacifica's moral fiber and stopping it from becoming what it could be, a progressive organization that gets the truth out to millions of people and practices what it puts on the air in various critiques of other organizations and governments practices.
Regards,
Angela
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low
PC-to-Phone call rates.
New Pacifica Working Group
http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica
'Save Our Stations!'
SPONSORED LINKS
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Esteemed PNB Members:
I know there is very little time available before the upcoming meetings in
New York, but I would ask that you please find time to consider the comments
in the attached forwarded message from Mr. Phelps (in response to Angela
Lauria's original March 16th message).
The matter of the WPFW-PNB-election appears to once again be coming before
the PNB for consideration. I do not know if you will be permitted to vote on
motions related to this matter but I hope that you will take the opportunity
to publicly acknowedge the important facts raised by Mr. Phelps, most
notably:
1. The culture we develop as we build Pacifica is important!! The fact that
"we have business to take care of" does not preclude the importance of basic
rights and due process.
2. We have an "inclusive democracy" method, not winner take all. The STV
voting method prescibed in our bylaws is designed to ensure that any
sizeable minority has a voice on the governing body.
3. The problems with this election are no different than those in Florida
2000 and Ohio 2004.
I have remained silent on this issue since February, when my motion to
rescind the listener-sponsor portion of our PNB election was defeated. It is
regrettable that almost an hour of that meeting was occupied by a technical
side-question and that our LSB was denied the opportunity to consider the
substance of the real issues.
You now have an opportunity to reflect fully on the salient facts in this
matter and move to correct this festering problem. As noted by Mr. Phelps:
... Our Bylaws, our Mission, justice, due process and basic fairness, and
the development of a fair and just organizational culture are at stake with
this matter.
Jane Gatewood
--
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
--
LIVE LONG AND PROSPER
__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.
New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp