On Tue, 23 Aug 2016, James Gannon wrote:

> This is very useful input and I hope that this is taken into account.
> Robin (cc'd) can I request you forward this mail to the NCSG EC list to ensure it's taken as an input into tomorrows meeting.
>
> -James
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neal McBurnett
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process

---snip---

> I hope that the new ballot simply lists NOTA as one option for each contest (rather than being separated out as an option for each candidate), and that the interpretation is that if NOTA is among the winners, that no candidate with less than the NOTA candidate will be seated, and another procedure would be used for filling the vacant seat.  But at this point I would be ok with just using the NOTA total as an indication of desire for improvement in candidates (which we don't seem to have an excess of - think about it folks...), as was done in at least one previous election.

---snip

I strongly support this suggestion -- and beg the committee to adopt exactly
that solution.

The parties involved have my respect and have normally been civil and 
respectfully of others, but the mood during this election process over
the ballot has turned ugly, and uncharacteristicly uncollegial.

To change the ballot as Dr. Mueller suggested by having a NOTA box for
each candidate would change the complexion of the whole election process
including the nomination period -- and delegitimaize the results changing
the rules in the middle of the contest.   NOTA simply does not make any
sense in normal English meaning, and should not be used to describe a
negative vote for an individual canditate, and would not make sense should
there have been ten canditates instead of three.  I'm particularly distressed
that Dr. Mueller choose to chastize Mr. Stoll when he was discussing on
this member's list options he was suggesting, stating that, "Let's leave it 
to the EC, Klaus."   Then Mr. Gannon suggests forwarding Mr. McBurnett's
comment to the EC via Ms. Gross.

I also note that earlier in the thread, Dr. Mueller suggested that actions
of the EC had to be ratified by the body politic before being legitimate
according to the Bylaws.  Yet the "Group of 21" letter does not demand
the inclusion of the discussion on the member's list.  If the out-of-precident
suggestion of NOTA for each canditate would be for the express purpose of
some member's desire that one of the duly nominated persons be removed from
the results.  Yet this brings up further questions:  how will we solve the
missing seat to the "Group of 21"'s satisfaction.  Hold another period
of nomination for the position?   Have the Chair appoint a member?  The
time to put forth alternates was during the nomination period, and if
the "Group of 21" can get their protests together, then they should have
been able to get a nominee acceptable to them during the open period to
run for the seat.

I beg the EC not to skuttle the legitimacy of the whole process to
satisfy the demand of the demands of the "Group of 21" to accomplish
by back channel methods rather than working openly and transparently
by nominating and campaigning for their choices on the list.


respectfully submitted,

-ron