hassinger@topaz.decus.org (Bob Hassinger) (04/26/91)
I think those who are receiving ballots in the current DECUS by-law change
election should be aware of the following discussion on DECUServe which has
surfaced. LDEC, the DECUS "election commission", has included an endorsement
of the PRO view in their cover letter. I appears this is inappropriate and
tends to improperly influence the voters. The following are the first two of
what is likely to be many more notes in one of the threads. There are similar
discussions going on in a number of other threads on DECUServe and DCS (the
DECUS leadership system).
<<< TOPAZ::$255$DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ETHICS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome to the ETHICS conference >-
================================================================================
Note 15.0 Ballot-administration ethics 1 replies
TOPAZ::MAYHEW "Bill, Business Practices UIG chair" 24 lines 24-APR-1991 15:24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a new ethics problem.
As a DECUS member, I believe my rights should include elections that
are conducted fairly and without bias by a neutral
ballot-administration entity.
That entity is currently LDEC. However, LDEC has TAKEN A POSITION in
the cover letter of the current bylaw-change ballot.
To me this flies in the face of basic ethical behavior. If the entity
charged with administering a ballot has a position, pro or con, on the
outcome of the ballot, then the entity should step aside and a new,
neutral agency should take its place.
I do not see how we can have a ballot process which is demonstrably
fair and open -- as opposed to "maybe, sorta, kinda, mostly fair" -- in
such a situation.
I'm not sure where this falls in the universe of canons, bylaws, and
bills of rights, but it should be there somewhere.
(Frankly I find this ethics problem, which affects all of us, more
significant than the potential ethics problem of admitting Kevin
Mitnick to a symposium, but that may be my personal problem.)
<<< TOPAZ::$255$DUA0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]ETHICS.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Welcome to the ETHICS conference >-
================================================================================
Note 15.1 Ballot-administration ethics 1 of 1
TOPAZ::HASSINGER 15 lines 25-APR-1991 10:29
-< Very serious mistake. How can it be undone? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I read that statement from LDEC in the cover letter I had not been
clear if LDEC actually was running this election or if it was the
Board. It is incredible that LDEC, with its tradition of maintaining
a neutral position and its charge under the by-laws could do this.
The LDEC institution, and its members who allowed this have been
discredited. The damage has been done. I don't know what they could
do now to set it right. Obviously an _immediate_ explanation and
apology is the first necessity. Unless they have a credible rational
for why it was OK, it would seem resignations are the only option.
That will not undo the damage to the current ballot process however
which is now in serious doubt.
I wonder if this gross violation of election ethics will receive
attention in the DEC press?