simonclifford wrote:As is clear in many posts not all the memebers have the free time to check the boards every day. Does that mean they dont have member rights? Are you saying you are therefor better than members who do not actively participlate in slandering anyone with an oposing view? Where does it say visiting the site daily is a pre-requisite to being a member?
simonclifford wrote:the party constitution is clear.
simonclifford wrote:I take you back to the original post:
"Members shall be entitled to vote in all relevant internal Party elections"
For this to be true it implies that they are kept informed. It is not adequate to say, well they should have checked, or an email might have been spam filtered.
Every reasonable effort should have been made, and sending an email to the membership would be reasonable.
rancidpunk wrote:I must admit that I only found out that the elections were underway by accident, my fault I know, but it does seem that Executive elections should be much more of a main event than they appear to be. Surely a big spalsh on the front page of the website with all the relevant links could have been organised or is organising the whole election process being dumped on the web team leader who is busy enough as it is?
samgower wrote:There is only so much the exec could have done to notify people. A blog post is as good as any notification; better than email, arguably, because it is a public announcement rather than a private message, although this is clearly a lesson to be learned in the future: send emails not only regarding the elections, but nominations for the elections too.
cabalamat wrote:samgower wrote:There is only so much the exec could have done to notify people. A blog post is as good as any notification; better than email, arguably, because it is a public announcement rather than a private message, although this is clearly a lesson to be learned in the future: send emails not only regarding the elections, but nominations for the elections too.
This seems a good idea and I think we should follow it for future elections.
“It's quite a stretch to say that "members are entitled to vote"="members are entitled to expect an email notifying them that nominations for a vote are being taken”
As to your first point, I disagree its not a stretch at all.
simonclifford wrote:“Every member has received an email about their right to vote.”
As to your second point, there is no disagreement here, although I do not see why the nominations were not communicated like this, ergo my whole argument. I think you un-intentionally made my point there very well.
simonclifford wrote:Regarding your third point which is nonsense
simonclifford wrote:you are implying something I have not suggested. I have not called for any punishment or anyone to be kicked out of the party. I do think however you are mistaking a political party from company or university politics, when you suggest poor community communication is acceptable by virtue of the fact it is voluntary, and bare in mind all I am calling for here is an email. Less time than it takes to write this post.
simonclifford wrote:I think an error was made, and as a party we should man up, take it on the chin and remedy the situation. No heads need roll, but the failure be remedied, by virtue of postponing the election whilst the nominations are extended with an email recognising the error in a mature way. That way this issue will not come back to haunt us down the line, which if let to stand, I think will.
simonclifford wrote:As for you last point, it appears that I have become the informal, unofficial election overseer, and whilst attempting to make an important point with a clear remedy, I have mainly been vilified for simply making this observation/contribution.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest