Dear Colleagues: In the minutes from our December meeting posted at http://www.dasc.org/dasc-list/hm/1580.html with a wrong and misleading subject "January 20 DASC Meeting Minutes" there is listed a request from Ron Waxman and an action for me. * Ron Waxman asked Alex to state his objection to the election * Alex sent this in his request but he will re-send it to the DASC reflector As I remember the Ron was asking that my objection be included in the minutes. Note that the formal request was sent to the reflector and it is attached to this e-mail. However I will re-iterate and provide short explanations for each bullet. So please add the following clarifications to the minutes. ------------------>% to be added to the minutes of the December DASC meeting Several irregularities occurred during the DASC elections. Those include: 1. *Not following the established procedures regarding the content of the ballot* The established procedure in the DASC officers election is that the ballot contains position statements from competing candidates, and qualification statements about those running unopposed. This is especially necessary when new members are joining, and it has never require much extra work from the Returning Officer (RO) because the statements were allways provided by the candidates in electronic form. The RO did not request the statements, he sent a ballot for vote without any statements, and was reluctant to correct this mistake in a satisfactory way during the election. 2. *Black-out periods of more than 4 days triggered by the returning * * officer during the vote period* At some time during the vote the RO called for a stop of the election process. For four days the vote was closed, and even if the RO re-opened the vote he did in fact shortened the vote period by 4 days, a violation of the procedures. 3. *Not providing any time between the announcement of the nominated * *candidates and the call for vote* The RO did not provide any time between the announcement of the nominated candidates and the call for vote. In the past because there was a request for submission of position statements, there was also some time for diplomacy, and the withholding of candidatures before the ballot was sent. With no request for position statements, the RO did a *simultaneous announcement* of the nominations, and call for vote, closing the door to diplomacy. This practice is non productive in an organization where just by seeing that somebody else is willing to volunteer one might withdraw, it was never practiced before, and it builds unnecessary animosity. 4. *Other minor irregularities* The RO disqualified himself for two reasons. A. He officially recognised that one action affecting the election process was influenced by the DASC Chair. Indeed when the RO received the an e-mail with an agreement from all the candidates participating in the election that they all are agreeable with including a position statement in the ballot, he mistakenly interpreted that it came as a request from the DASC chair. That way his independent status was violated, others could complain, and in fact forced him to act against his will to satisfy the candidates' will. B. The RO recognised that he does not have enough time to do a good job. That was when he posted a message stating that he does not have the time to put together a ballot which would include position statements (because "he just volunteers" his time and there is no extra for that). Please note that this is not about the result of the election, much energy (and maybe popularity) being lost in trying to help fix the mistakes during the election. ------------------------>% THE ABOVE SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES I hope that my action (of providing the information in the minutes) is done, and that the DASC chair will proceed as required to address my appeal in time. Kind regards, Alex Zamfirescu On 12/18/07, Alex Zamfirescu <alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Colleagues: > > This is a formal request to the DASC. > > I would like to request that the elections be re-started with a new > returning officer. > The reason is that several irregularities occurred during the previous > turn. > Those include: > > 1. not following the established procedures regarding the content of > the ballot > 2. black-out periods of more than 4 days triggered by the returning > officer during the vote period > 3. not providing any time between the announcement of the nominated > candidates and the call for vote > 4. other minor irregularities > > Please provide time at the next DASC meeting for the discussion of this > request. > > Kind regards, > > Alex Zamfirescu > > > > On 12/18/07, Peter Ashenden <peter@ashenden.com.au> wrote: > > > > Dear colleagues, > > > > Voting has now closed in the ballot for election of DASC Chair and Vice > > Chair. The count of votes from eligible voters is: > > > > Chair > > Victor Berman: 19 (elected) > > > > Vice Chair > > > > Stan Krolikoski: 12 (elected) > > Kathy Werner: 9 > > Alex Zamfirescu: 1 > > > > Please join me in congratulating Victor and Stan on their election. > > > > For information, further votes from people who were ineligible either > > due to > > lapsed DASC membership or due to not meeting the 3-of-last-4 > > participation > > requirements were: > > > > Chair > > > > Victor Berman: 15 > > > > Vice Chair > > > > Stan Krolikoski: 8 > > Kathy Werner: 5 > > Alex Zamfirescu: 3 > > > > The role of those voting follows. This will be recorded as participation > > for > > the 3-of-last-4 rule. > > > > Alex Zamfirescu > > Andrew Piziali > > Charlie Dawson > > Darren Galpin > > David Barton > > Dennis Brophy > > Gary Delp > > Jim Vellenga > > Joseph Hupcey > > Karen Bartleson > > Karen Pieper > > Kathy Werner > > Michael Mirmak > > Mike McNamara > > Perry Alexander > > Ron Waxman > > Serrie Chapman > > Stan Krolikoski > > Stephen (Steve) Bailey > > Steven Dovich > > Victor Berman > > Yatin Trivedi > > Bill Paulsen > > Chuck Berking > > Steven Sharp > > Ajay Varikat > > Ben Tyler > > Tom Kazmierski > > John Willis > > Chuck Swart > > Alain Vachoux > > Ernst Christen > > John Ries > > Jake Karrfalt > > Tim Schneider > > John Shields > > Bill Hannah > > Pankaj Mayor > > Jim Lewis > > > > Thanks to all who participated. > > > > Best regards, > > > > PA > > > > -- > > Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au > > Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au > > PO Box 640 VoIP: > > sip://0871270078@sip.internode.on.net > > Stirling, SA 5152 Phone: +61 8 7127 0078 > > Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106 > > > > > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > > > > > > > > -- > Alex Zamfirescu > 650-814-7514 > alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com > http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com > ========= > This communication, and its attachments, may contain > privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific > individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the > intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or > shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that > any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or > the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. > Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication > Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have > received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply > e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission > and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. > Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. > ========= -- Alex Zamfirescu 650-814-7514 alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com http://alex.zamfirescu.googlepages.com ========= This communication, and its attachments, may contain privileged, or confidential information, intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this communication, and/or shred the materials and any attachments, and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this communication, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. Interception of e-mail is a crime under the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and 2701-2709. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify me by reply e-mail at alex.zamfirescu@gmail.com and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them, or saving them to disk. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ========= -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Feb 4 11:33:27 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 04 2008 - 11:34:02 PST