"I mention it because during my short time as a member (the past 3+ years) I have only heard it expressly stated as an option openly this past year."

Joey just an fyi - your election as BWA safety officer in 2006 employed absentee ballots:-)

[www.americanwhitewater.org]

Regardless, let's just get it cleared up and I think Hanley's idea for a July vote when the membership is down to the active core is a good one. Though I am fine to leave it as is cause I am convinced absentee voting is permissable within our bylaws, the issue has been raised and would be simple to clear up so those that care about whether it is available or not will know. Not really sure why there is even controversy about folks absentee voting that care enough to be members in the BWA unless there is reason they should be disenfranchised. But Joey is right that we need to get it in the Bylaws unequivocably spelled out in black and white. So, let's tee it back up for July.
Brent

Having given this a good bit of thought, I decided that it is probably the right thing to do to allow absentee voting at the upcoming officer elections, with the stipulation of a formalized method as Joey suggests. Although this makes me a tad uncomfortable, I feel that three arguments made here are stronger than the rest.

1) Not allowing absentee voting would disenfranchise existing members, many of whom have voted absentee in the past and would have every reason to expect to be able to do so for this election.

2) There is a long established precedence of allowing absentee voting.

3) Brent's clear argument of implied intent by the absence of specific language used elsewhere in the document to describe a restriction on a parallel situation.

So, I say we allow it for this election, but make sure that the options presented for amendment of the bylaws for July clarify this issue one way or another. I suggest having two proposed amendments to vote on, one specifically allowing absentee voting and one specifically forbidding it. Hopefully one or the other will pass.

Hanley

You know it's funny you reference that election year Barry because not only was I nominated and elected to safety officer with the use as you point out of absentee voting as an option, It was done with out my knowledge, I was away in NC for the entire summer and it was not until I returned from NC in August that I learned I had not only been nominated but actually elected to a position during an election I could even have voted in, WOW talk about disenfranchisement. So I restate that it was not clearly communicated to all. It may have been in practice but not uniformly nor with a formal format. That is all I am trying to convey here. I appreciate you dredging this up from a post that came at some point from the old forum. There, to my knowledge, had been little effort to consistantly inform all members of this option, no e-mail, just a single forum post. This probably means that others with short tenures in the BWA were quite possibly in the same boat as me. As we know from this forum a small percentage of the whole membership actually reads it all and posts. I do thank you for putting the info out there that it did exist, but I think it only reinforces the need to have a formal set-up so all may know of this option if it is to be used effectively and fairly. If only 50% of the club know it is an option what is the fairness and legitimacy in that? just a retorical question. So I recommend we set-up a formal ballot as planned if the amendment was passed so there can be a new precedent established for this option and therefore legitimize it to all members. Thanks, J

Joey Calder

You guys are on the right track. Let's get something firmed up at the SC meeting next week and I will send out an email to everyone who has a working email address in my possession. We will also put a post on the forum. It's a good way to have a test run before we try to put anything in "black and white". I think the best and easiest way to count ballots would be to print the email responses as they come in and bring them to the meeting. We would have written record if there needed to be a recount or if we needed to hang some Chads or whatever. Anyone have any other thoughts?

Melloman: Sounds fine to me. I think as long as we have verifiable votes such as email, snail mail (received by John the day of the election), or in person, we then have legitimate votes from any members that care enough to vote. Verifiability seems to be the key to the formality that Joey suggests, and I think anything is fine as long as we are consistent.
Brent

I am against absentee voting, but it looks like it will be allowed this year, so let's at least publicize it and do it right. I agree that an email should be sent explaining that absentee voting is being allowed and what the procedure will be, but I don't see how absentee votes by email are going to work. How will absentee voters be able verify that their votes got counted? What's to keep emails from being selectively chosen for printing and counting? What about voter anonymity? I posted links to several secure internet voting services before, why has that option been rejected? Heck, if a secret ballot isn't being considered for absentee voters anyway, why not just have them post their votes on the forum?

Meryl

Some element of trust in the officer or officers receiving the email should be sufficient. Nothing to keep someone from not counting in person votes which is by ballot either. How does anyone know who might toss them? I don't see anyone doing that nor has that ever been known to happen. I would trust any officer to properly count them and I see no reason to do away with the longstanding practice of secret ballot. Some folks don't want folks to see who they vote for because they may have friends they do not want to argue with that may disagree with their candidate choice. This is not that big of a deal in counting and accounting for votes.
Brent
.

I believe that Meryl's suggestion has merit. In fact, I think we should do it. For the record, I don't remember that idea being rejected. As I remember (and I may be wrong), once she presented us with these websites specifically designed to facilitate absentee voting for organizations, the idea met with general approval.

In any case, implementation of this proposal is probably easier than tallying email ballots and would certainly provide more transparency and validation of the election process, so I say we go with it.

Speaking to Brent's point, he is right also. We will never be free of the spectre of suspicion of election fraud as long as someone wants to suggest it. There will always be some uncertainty. Hell, a 12-year-old kid in 2004 could download instructions for hacking a Diebold voting machine (which were built with a back door) and make a reasonable attempt at rigging a national election. It is worth while to suggest reasonable changes to ensure valid elections, but just because people default to what they know and/or what has been done in the past does not mean that there is a conspiracy afoot.

I know that there are a lot of hard feelings in the club between numerous individuals over what to various combatants appear to be underhanded practices or actions of their opponents. Whether these actions in any given situation were or were not ethical, I will not debate. However, I do not believe in general that there is evil afoot. Pretty much everyone involved in the BWA has good intentions and good reasons for being here, but different perspectives about what is and is not acceptable. The one common thread that I see among all of the parties slinging accusations at each other over the last year is a lack of ability (or willingness) to look at the situation through the perspective of their opponents. If we all did a little more of this, we might find that we have more common ground than we have disagreement.

It's not good vs evil folks, it's just boating.

Hanley

I like to motion that we vote to eliminate voting. Or I previously suggested that if voting is to be continued an "Election Committee" MUST be created to resolve the issues Meryl addresses. There is NO other way to legitimize the election process. The Committee MUST have people from each of the newly created parties. I know one thing Dave Thomas isn’t going to count votes without me looking over his shoulder.

I understand the BWA has been infiltrated with liars and cheats who want to destroy decades of BWA milestones. Do we need more rules and more people telling us what to do and do we need more people to stand up (or sit down) and piss on the ones who actually contribute (work), who actually boat and believe in the purpose of the BWA. IMOHO, being an ass-hole on the forum doesn't count as contributing, nor does volunteering at the NPFF to sit on your ass and tap beer for 2 hrs. Neither is an example of what being INVOLVED is about.

I also motion to eliminate the liars, cheats and most of all the duds, Joey ;-)