Diane wrote,
The election results mean nothing because the whole election was
improperly
created and improperly conducted.
We will never know what an educated and informed electorate might have
decided because free speech and discussion was banned by our SC.
I would like the rest of the readers of this list to know that I wrote
privately to Diane twice in advance of this referendum, on November 23 and
again on November 27, telling her what I intended to have on the ballot,
and in the second of these messages I specifically asked for her input.
She did not take this opportunity to enter into a dialogue about what
should, or should not, be included on the ballot. Diane has also ignored
my offer to continue the dicussion of these issues on the -DISCUSS list
while the vote was in progress.
While I am disappointed that only 41 persons voted, out of 71 eligible, I
think the answer is in any case unequivocal that very few people want to
see discussion of either the domain name or incorporation issue continue on
NCGENWEB-L. Furthermore, a majority of those voting preferred to drop the
discussion altogether rather than either continuing discussion or
proceeding to a vote. Since these 24 or 25 people do not however
constitute a majority of the CCs, in deference to Diane's complaint I am
willing for discussion of these issues to continue on the NCGENWEB-DISCUSS
list if she or anyone else feels that more should be said. Shall we say
until January 15th?. At this time we will reassess whether we are ready
for a vote.
Diane also wrote, in a second message,
As far as the election goes, I never recognized its existence, and I,
and
others did not vote in it. My 5 votes are not in that pile anywhere. Also
40 votes does not mean 40 individuals, because each county and project
gets a vote. There are 100 counties and plus projects and reps. I don't
believe we
CCs are even privy to the number of potential votes allowed for NoCar.
We established who was eligible to vote in the first referendum, which
Diane seems to have forgotten. We agreed overwhelmingly that each project
participant should be entitled to one vote, regardless of how many counties
or projects he or she was involved with. I sent our vote-taker a list of
72 persons, all but four of whom were CCs. The other four are special
projects volunteers who are not currently CCs.
Diane, had she voted, would have been entitled to one, not five, votes.
The present count is of 41 individuals who cast one vote each.
By ignoring my request for her input on the form that the vote should take
(and I told her twice that I planned to ask for a referendum on whether
discussion should be continued, brought to a vote, or ended, the three
possible actions we could have taken), and by refusing to vote herself,
Diane has in my opinion completely undermined her own complaint that the
direction of NCGenWeb is not being determined by a democratic process. I
am trying to manage this project in a fair and even-handed manner.
Fairness means listening to the opinions of all the CCs, not just one very
vocal one.
Diane also made the following remark:
used her bully
pulpit to file a complaint against me, simply for having an opinion
different
than hers and for trying to express it.
My complaint was not that Diane's opinion differs from mine, but that she
misrepresented my actions and statements in a public forum, USGENWEB-ALL.
I asked Bridgett Smith, our southeast area representative on the USGenWeb
project board, for her assistance in mediating this dispute. Bridgett
listened to both of us and then asked us to try to settle it privately. It
never reached the stage of a formal grievance.
Elizabeth Harris
ncgen(a)mindspring.com
state coordinator for NCGenWeb:
http://www.rootsweb.com/~ncgenweb/