Final Report on 2011 AML Election available

Get comfy, because it's 90 pages long. Here's the announcement that was sent out a couple of hours ago alerting the membership to the report.

Upon review of the circumstances of the 2011 AML board elections, the data provided by the election house and verified by independent auditors, and the final reports of independent auditors reviewing the data collection and tabulation processes of the election house, the Election Committee has released its final report. The report in it's entirety can be downloaded fromhttp://www.us.mensa.org/election - select 2011 Board Elections from the left menu and the report linked at the top of that page.

If you do not have your login information available, please contact WebServices@americanmensa.org.

Interim Election Committee report

Here is the interim report that was released by the national Election Committee on June 21. It is unknown at this point when the final report will be handed out or when the three candidates' complaints cited will be addressed.
------

As the Election Committee announced previously, we sent a third-party forensic auditor to certify the results of this year's board elections after the election house informed us of an error in the tabulations for the preferential races. While an extensive report will be forthcoming, the Election Committee felt it best to convey an overview of the circumstances to the membership as an interim report.

Since that time, we have been in communication with the election house and the audit firm regarding the circumstances that led to the initial decertification of results of the two preferential races.

Both print and Web votes were collected accurately and stored securely, and the votes for all races remain intact and untouched. The tabulation process was separate. The error occurred when electronic votes for the preferential races were tabulated.  A programming error by a technician involved with our election caused the electronic votes in those races to be counted incorrectly. The error went unnoticed until the election house ran a report for us of the breakout of the print vs. Web results that made the error apparent.

Because the failed portion of the programming code only involved the preferential tabulations, the plurality (two-candidate) race results were not in question.  The tabulation of those races was a simple majority of the collected votes in each case.

The votes for all races were provided to the independent, forensic auditor for verification, whose results mirrored the final results from the election house on June 9. The Election Committee has since requested additional reporting and review of the election processes at the request of the election house.

We have received three complaints from election candidates, contesting the election results, and will address these complaints once we have received the additional reports.

Maggie Truelove
Election Committee Chair
ElectionChair@us.mensa.org

Awaiting a Report on the Election

Several of us have submitted disputes of the election, given the "revised" election results. Such a spectacular snafu in tabulation and certification of the results can't be permitted to go unchallenged. A thorough report must be given. And the members' remaining questions should be answered directly by the election house and the forensic auditor at the ABM itself.

I have heard that the Election Committee is looking to have its report completed by the end of next week. I hope that it is finished by then, and as thorough as possible.

Updated AMC Election Results

This was announced late Friday, June 10, but I'm only just getting a chance to post it here.


---


The following are the updated results for the offices of First Vice Chairman and Treasurer. After a re-tabulation by a CPA/forensic auditor engaged by the Election Committee, the committee reports the following results. This is a change for the declared-elected First Vice Chairman and Treasurer. All other races remain as previously reported. 

First Vice Chairman - Dan Burg is declared elected 

Round 1
Dan Burg 2781 47.8%
Cookie Bakke 1791 30.8%
Robin Crawford 1245 21.4% 

Round 2
Dan Burg 3560 61.6%
Cookie Bakke 2215 38.4% 

Treasurer - Nick Sanford is declared elected. 

Nick Sanford 2165 38.0%
Cary Chilson 2110 37.%
Guy Conti 1426 25.% 

Second Round
Nick Sanford 2966 52.9%
Cary Chilson 2640 47.1% 

The error in the initial election results, as reported by the election house, was the result of human error when a technician failed to use the proper query to tabulate the preferential races. The collection and/or security of the ballots was never in question. 

The election committee congratulates the winners and thanks all of the candidates for the professional and dignified manner in which they handled the uncertainty of the last few days. The Committee will be issuing a full report to the AMC detailing the circumstances of this election. 

Regards to all, 
Maggie Truelove
Election Chair
ElectionChair@us.mensa.org

2011 AMC Election Results

Survey and Ballot Systems, our election house for the 2011 board election and amendments, reported the following certified results this afternoon. These results include 5,966 returned ballots from 45,043 eligible members with a final participation rate of 13.25%. It is also worth noting that 2,317 ballots were submitted via Web voting and 3,649 paper ballots were returned via regular mail.

Congratulations to all of the winners. To those who were not elected, thank you for being willing to serve Mensa; I hope that you will continue to be active members.

My thanks to the Election Committee members: Nora Foust, Megan Edwards, Conrad Pomykala, Deb Skinner, AMC liaison Greg Timmers, and staff liaison Howard Prince

Best regards to all,

Maggie Truelove 
Election Chair 
ElectionChair@us.mensa.org

______________________________________________________________________

The following positions were unopposed and the candidates were declared elected: RVC 1 - Andrew Heffernan; RVC 2 - Marc Lederman; RVC 3 - Betsy Mark; RVC 4 - Ken Silver; RVC 5 - Bob Cox; RVC 8 - Debra Reiger; and RVC 10 - Mel Dahl. Treasurer candidate Cyndi Kuyper withdrew from the election.

______________________________________________________________________

Chair: 
Elissa Rudolph 4,159 
Lee Berkovits 1,670

Elissa Rudolph is declared elected.

1st Vice Chair:

Round 1 
Robin Crawford 2,871 
Dan Burg 1,758 
Cookie Bakke 1,188

Round 2 
Robin Crawford 3,319 
Dan Burg 2,365

Robin Crawford is declared elected.

2nd Vice Chair: 
John Recht 3,426 
Lori Norris 2,271

John Recht is declared elected.

Secretary: 
Heather Poirier 3,453 
Jared Levine 2,283

Heather Poirier is declared elected.

Treasurer: 
Cary Chilson 3,379 
Nick Sanford 1,414 
Guy Conti 910

Cary Chilson is declared elected.

RVC 6: 
Roger Durham 385 
James Franzen 161

Roger Durham is declared elected.

RVC 7: 
Peggy Pannke-Smith 282 
VeraLouise Kleinfeld Pfeiffer 53

Peggy Pannke-Smith is declared elected.

RVC 9: 
Clark Jones 460 
Joan Johnson 269

Clark Jones is declared elected.

______________________________________________________________________

The following bylaw amendment was put before the membership. It required 2/3 of the voting membership to pass. You can find full text of this amendment online at http://www.us.mensa.org/election.

Bylaw Amendment 1 
For 3,008 
Against 2,478

Bylaw Amendment 1 fails.

Tapping My Toe

It feels like the AMC election has been going on an interminable time. "Get on with it!" is the one thing that comes to mind, regardless the results. I know there's no reasonable way to shorten the period of time we use, but that doesn't mean I've got to like the length of time it is. :-)

Many people have asked me if the results have been announced yet. No, still not just yet. However, whereas the candidates were told that we'd find out on June 9, as of earlier tonight on the AML Forums, Howard posted that the counting house is contractually obligated to have the results in to the National Office by June 7. (Maybe that June 9 was a typo.)

So, we should find out tomorrow. Depending on what time of the day that gets sent out, the AML Newsflash announcing the results will be sent out either tomorrow or Wednesday. (Not that the info won't have already spread pretty fast from the people on the initial list of recipients.)

Last-minute voting?

For those of you who have not voted yet in the AML election, there's still time, though realistically only enough time to do so on-line. (Online voting ends 11:59pm CDT on May 31, 2011.)

To be able to do so, you need both your Membership Number and the specially provided E-Signature (election passcode) that was mailed to you with the ballot materials in mid-April. Once you have those on-hand:

--Go to https://www.directvote.net/mensa

--Login using the Member Number and E-Signature (election passcode) provided

That should bring you to the ballot for you to vote; hopefully it is self-explanatory from there. (I voted via paper, so can't provide any more directions, not having ever seen directions for filling out the ballot itself online nor coming up with them from memory.)

Please vote. And make sure your fellow Mensans vote, too! (And, obviously, I would appreciate it if you voted for me for AMC Secretary while you're at it.)

Which is more important in voting for an AMC Secretary?

Recently, I have been asked which I consider to be more important in an AMC Secretary: the secretarial skills or the "AMC skills", ill-defined as the latter is.

I think that, first and foremost, when one is electing someone to a position that calls for specific skills and tasks, which AMC Secretary certainly is, that specific role is more important in the calculus of voting than the general role as shared by the entirety of the AMC.

If someone is elected to the office of Secretary who is unable to fulfill those specific duties (or, at least to the AMC and/or membership's satisfaction), then the AMC is left with the unenviable position of appointing someone to take over that role. (And that's been done previously.) Whereas, if someone is elected to the office of Secretary who can well fulfill the specific duties but isn't adept at the rest of the AMC matters that are spread across the AMC as a whole (or shared among them all, more likely), there is nothing that really needs to be done to rectify the deficiency; the odds that their individual vote will turn the tide on matters is small.

In the ideal situation, the person being elected to the office of Secretary will be able to not only do the secretarial skills well, but will also be able to fulfill the other AMC "skills" well, too.

Clearly, I feel that I will be able to fulfill the secretarial and general AMC skillsets well.

Questions?

So, do you have any particular questions related to the AMC, Secretary, AML, etc. that you would like me to answer here? Click on the comments link and send it/them in to be posted and replied to. (Some may get separated out into additional blog entries, even.)

Snowball RG

Looking forward to attending Snowball this weekend. I've always had a good time there, largely in the games room, but also enjoying a few programs (like Monster Trivia and the (IMO) very evil Spelling Bee). This year, I'm also looking forward to Harry Ringermacher's talk on Dark Matter and, naturally, the Meet the Candidates session that will take place after the RVC Rap Session.

Hope to see y'all in NJ.

Cross-referencing documents

There have been intermittent calls from a couple of LocSecs to index the Local Group Charter with the various documents and ASIEs that are referenced so that when any of those source documents is amended or updated, it can be properly reflected in the charter, and vice versa. This would help prevent changes in one document from getting lost in the cracks in a different document that references it. I thoroughly agree with this proposal. Alas, it has not managed to gain steam.

If elected AMC Secretary, I will take on this task to make for more useful/user-friendly documents.

Lack of courtesy in prolonged delay in replying

Sometimes "life" gets in the way of sending a reply to an e-mail. I certainly get that, and never *expect* an immediate reply to an e-mail I am initiating (though I'm always pleased to get them). A few days, and even a week at times, are totally reasonable amounts of time in which to respond to something. (And if one is out of contact for a long amount of time on vacation or somesuch, then it is appropriate to either give forewarning of same when that is possible or lead off with an acknowledgement of that when one finally gets back online and is replying to e-mail. Obviously if a dire emergency has intervened, it may take a considerable amount of time for some reflection of that to wind its way to people making inquiries on various topics.) Multiple weeks, let alone a month, without replying to any extent comes across as an avoidance tactic, especially when there are multiple people on the e-mail and no one replies.


As many may know, Barry Levine (no relation) was expelled from AML in 2008. Recently, he appealed that decision to the International Board of Directors (IBD) for the one thing they could offer him - Direct International Membership (DIM) status. He posted his official request on M-Pol and has provided brief (believe it or not) updates about how long it has been since he last inquired about the status.

Eventually, I wrote to a source (who I have promised, so far, not to identify and who is listed as [X] below) asking for the status of the decision. A full month after being informed that a decision has actually been reached (and I have no idea when that decision was made), that decision has not been conveyed to Barry nor to AML writ large. Nor has a simple explanation been provided as to what the extensive delay in conveying the decision is.

The below letter, I think, speaks for itself from this point on.

----

[X] and Ms. Rudolph,

I am flummoxed by the rather thorough lack of communication that seems to be occurring with respect to this situation. 5 weeks ago, I inquired about the status of Barry Levine's appeal to IBD. In what I thought was a reasonable amount of time (one week, especially since my e-mail was sent via the MIL website), [X] sent a reply indicating that a decision had been reached, but had not as yet been conveyed to Barry.

It seemed likely to me that a decent chunk of the posts I would read upon my return from a 2-week vacation would have been related to Barry's forwarding on whatever the decision was since, surely, he would have received that decision sometime during my time away. However, quite obviously, such was not the case. 

And still, 2 weeks further hence (a total of one month since the time you mentioned the fact that a decision HAD actually been reached, and an unstated amount of time since that decision was reached) there has not been any communication with Barry from IBD regarding this matter, nor have either of you responded to my simple query (in the thread backquoted below) as to what the delay is. While I am keenly interested in why it should take such a long time to inform the central party to this matter what the final resolution is, and am disappointed that neither of you appear to want to answer such, that is of lesser concern than making sure that the actual decision is finally conveyed.

This is hardly something that affects only Barry. Rather, it affects all of AML and, I dare say, all of MIL. The underlying matter is the fairness of AML's hearings process. Does IBD think that Barry, via the process that AML has in place and as applied to him with respect to his 2008 expulsion from AML, was treated to a fair and impartial hearing? If not, then IBD should do the one thing that it has at its disposal and offer him DIM status. This would be a clear signal to all of AML as well as the other national Mensas that MIL will take what action it can to ensure fairness within our respective hearings systems and would hopefully serve as a clarion signal to AML that reform of our system needs to be implemented.

If the IBD thinks that Barry was treated fairly, then it should not waver in stating so. In such an instance, this sort of delay is mind-boggling.

Regardless of what the IBD has already decided, Barry (as the petitioner), AML members (as the Mensan party with the highest vested interest), and MIL members writ large deserve to know what the decision was. If there is a particular technicality or legality that is holding up the process of disseminating that information, then it is a matter of simple propriety and courtesy that demands a basic explanation of same and an expected time by which we can expect to have the final decision rendered in its final form.

Ms. Rudolph, as AMC Chairman and a member of the International ExComm, I would appreciate it if you would do what you can to move this process along. I would also appreciate it if you would provide your understanding as to why there has been such a long delay (clearly over one month) in communicating the final decision of IBD in this matter (even if you aren't empowered to be the one to relay the actual decision itself).

Thank you, both. I look forward to your replies as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Jared Levine

LocSec, Metropolitan Washington Mensa

Candidate for AMC Secretary

Incomplete Updating of ASIEs

Not unexpectedly, it is frequently difficult to find an Action Still in Effect (ASIE) relevant to a discussion related to action taken by the AMC. It's just such an unwieldy document, and despite the various "chapters," things aren't always where you might expect them to be. And if you aren't looking in the right spot, a keyword search might not prove fruitful if you don't hit on an appropriate term quickly enough.

The task is all the more complicated by two things:
1) The full ASIEs not being updated relatively quickly after each meeting of the AMC;
2) Incomplete/ineffective updating of the ASIEs in previous years

As of tonight, the ASIEs were last updated dated Dec. 1, 2009, although there have been 2 in-person meetings and one by teleconference this year.

I was just looking for an ASIE last night that was passed in 2007, though I didn't know that, specifically, at first. My keywords didn't locate the ASIE in a simple automated search, so I decided to do the old hunt-and-peck method by searching through each of the minutes of in-person meetings from the last few years until I found it. Turns out it was passed in a Consensus Agenda motion in December 2007 but the relevant ASIE number is nowhere to be found in the compilation document of our ASIEs. And as it has to do with the procedures of running a Hearing Committee, it is not in the chapter related to Hearings, rather the appendix dealing with the Policies and Rules Governing the Conduct of National Hearings. Further complicating things, that appendix lists the most recent amendment as having been passed (and, hence, included within the appendix) in March 2005, even though the text of the motion that was passed is actually included within the listing of rules in that appendix.

As Secretary, I will make sure, in short order following an AMC meeting or teleconference, that the ASIE listing is updated with each meeting's passed ASIEs. I will also endeavor to bring up to current the ASIE listing based on previous meetings. I will also attempt to make meaningful cross-references in AMC documentation where possible so that when ASIEs are added, amended, or deleted which affect other ASIEs, those changes will be more readily apparent.

Petition for AMC Secretary

I have just officially submitted my name to be a candidate for Secretary in the upcoming AMC election. To sign my petition, please log in on the AML website and go to www.us.mensa.org/election, select the "View/Sign Candidate Petitions" link, and click on the link with my name.

Thanks.

Oddity in Election Code

For those who are crazy enough to read through the full Election Code (like me, obviously), you may have noticed a couple of curiosities:
1) The Code talks about the biographic statement and the campaign statement as if they are items that are separate from the questions asked by AMC on the Candidate Information Forms (CIFs), however, those are actually questions 8 and 9 on the forms;
2) The word limit for the biographical statement on the CIF is 50 words, but the word limit for the biographical statement per the Election Code is 150 words.

It's not yet clear to me whether this means there are supposed to be two separate biographic statements and two separate campaign statements, or something else.

I've sent some questions to the Election Committee Chairman in an attempt to clarify these items and will post a follow-up note in this thread once it's cleared up.

Petition Procedure Announced for Upcoming Election

Candidates Wanted!

The Election Committee has finalized the Code of Election Procedures for the upcoming AMC election and bylaws referendum. You can view the various and sundry parts of the Code and access the relevant paperwork at www.us.mensa.org/election.

While you can download the petition in order to print out hardcopy and get signatures the old-fashioned way, you can also create and/or sign petitions (for AMC election, not for the bylaws referenda) online. Simply go to the above website and click on the "Create Your Candidate Petition" and/or "View/Sign Candidate Petitions" links. The process is rather straightforward. As the procedure was only just announced earlier today, there aren't any petitions created just yet. I have no doubt that there will be some in the coming days and weeks.

Qualifications, per se, are minimal to get on the ballot. You must be a member in good standing with your dues paid for the next membership year (at least) by Jan. 31 (i.e., renew early). You must reside in the U.S. For RVC positions, you must be a member of the region for which you are running. Candidates for Treasurer should be bondable. I think the same is true for candidates for Chairman. And while it is not something explicitly stated in the Code or in our bylaws, I seem to recall that candidates for AMC must be at least 18 years of age by the date they would be taking office (given NYS not-for-profit law). And, clearly, you must fill out the various paperwork required by the Code by the deadlines provided for in the Code. Did I overlook something? Full specifics on qualifications are laid out in www.us.mensa.org/election and scroll down to the bottom of the page to click on the "2011 Election Code - FINAL" link. Beneath that are the links to the various paperwork that needs to be filled out by candidates, as well as links related to bylaws petitions, the international election, and other AML links.

While that pretty much exhausts the basic requirements for getting on the ballot, it's up to the individual candidates to "sell" themselves as the best candidate for the office to the membership.

Some positions are currently contested, but the majority of the elected positions (9 out of the 15) are not yet contested: Chairman, Secretary, and RVCs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 10.
(NB: There are four appointed positions, and the two most recent Past Chairmen are automatically members of the AMC, to bring us to the total of 21 members of AMC.)