killeen@spcvxb.spc.edu (Jeff Killeen) (05/30/91)
D E C U S - I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Date: 29-May-1991 04:30pm EST
From: Lynn Jarrett
JARRETT
Dept: LDEC
Subject: Referendum Results
Doc Number: 009761
The votes have been counted and verified for the special
election. The referendum needed a two-thirds vote for
the bylaw changes in order to pass. The referendum, as
the figures below dictate, has failed to pass.
Total number in Favor (YES) 6,818 (58%)
Total number Against (NO) 4,917 (42%)
-------
Total number of valid votes: 11,735
Lynn Jarrett
LDEC Chairjmi@dac.mdcbbs.com (JM Ivler) (05/30/91)
I posted this up on the Notes system at DAC and recived an interesting response: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Imagine what the vote would have been had the propoganda been distributed fairly by both sides of the issue. I would have to give a lot of credit to the proponents of the NO side, who were able to defeat this vote using only alternate avenues of communication. I hope that these alternate avenues will continue to be used to inform and keep the DECUS interested individual involved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's keep the lines of communication open! jmi jmi@dac.mdcbbs.com (until 6-jun-91) ivler@mdcbbs.com (thereafter) ivler@dcs.decus.org -or- ivler@eisner.decus.org (DECUS business only) vaxman@qed.tcc.com (emergency if mail bounces from anywhere else) root@gadco.com (coming soon to a mailer near you :-) )
cts@dragon.com (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) (06/01/91)
> The votes have been counted and verified for the special > election. The referendum needed a two-thirds vote for > the bylaw changes in order to pass. The referendum, as > the figures below dictate, has failed to pass. Now that this little issue has been settled, perhaps its time for another bylaw change - one that will allow a recall election for the Board of Directors. Given what I've heard about how some members of the board have conducted themselves in this affair, and how they have refused to discuss the issue, I am not at all certian they should continue to (in theory) lead Decus. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Charles T. Smith, Jr. | "Beam me up, Scotty, there's no cts@dragon.uucp | intelligent life down here..." gatech!emory!dragon!cts | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hassinger@lmrc.uucp (Bob Hassinger) (06/04/91)
In article <1991May31.120421.506@dragon.com>, cts@dragon.com (Charles T. Smith, Jr.) writes: >> The votes have been counted and verified for the special >> election. The referendum needed a two-thirds vote for >> the bylaw changes in order to pass. The referendum, as >> the figures below dictate, has failed to pass. > > Now that this little issue has been settled, perhaps its time for > another bylaw change - one that will allow a recall election > for the Board of Directors. > > Given what I've heard about how some members of the board have > conducted themselves in this affair, and how they have refused to > discuss the issue, I am not at all certain they should continue > to (in theory) lead Decus. As a matter of fact the idea of a recall provision _was_ proposed during the leadership discussion of the Board's proposed by-law change. Many leaders asked that a provision for recall be added to the proposal and argued for it energetically. Characteristically it was largely a one sided "discussion" with little involvement from the Board. In its wisdom the present Board eventually concluded it would not add such a provision to the proposal. A good case can be made that this was "a", and maybe "the", pivotal issue that lead to the defeat of the by-law proposal. I suspect that an acceptable accommodation by the Board of this request would have de-fused enough of the opposition to have gained voter approval of the package. Bob Hassinger