[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::dcu

Title:	DCU
Notice:	1996 BoD Election results in 1004
Moderator:	CPEEDY::BRADLEY

Created:	Sat Feb 07 1987
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1041
Total number of notes:	18759

399.0. "Special Election -- Report from Mary Madden" by MLTVAX::SCONCE (Bill Sconce) Fri Nov 22 1991 10:14

I just got off the phone with Mary Madden.  We had about a 20-minute
conversation;  she was friendly, professional and cooperative.

The Special Elections will happen.  All 7 Board positions will be open.

There most likely will be staggered terms, so that all 7 terms don't expire
at the same time.  (This creates certain questions about how the election
will have to be run, and Mary indicated that some of them are still being
worked out.)

The Special Election will probably take the place of the normal election this
year.  [It wouldn't seem to make any sense to have a normal election within
a month or so of electing all Board members.]

The deadline for candidacy-packet submission is almost certain to be extended
beyond the previously-announced early-December date.  Some details of the
schedule are still being worked on, however, and all Mary could commit to
was that there would be adequate time for each step of the process to be
correctly handled.  They expect to follow pretty much the same steps as are
used in normal elections (applications to the Nominating Committee first,
a window for petition applications later, and so on).

The important thing is that all of the schedule information will be available
to everyone, laid out in print.  They're going to put an insert covering plans
for the Special Elections into the November statement mailing.  (They'll be
mailing something to holders of savings-accounts-only, too, notwithstanding
that this is an off month for them, to ensure that all shareholders get the
announcement.)  Mary said that they will rely on the statement mailing to
get the word out, so that all of the information is available at the same
time, and available to all shareholders.

Mary was consistent in projecting that the schedule will allow adequate time
for everything to take place in a reasonable way.  [In effect this may mean
that the Special Meeting vote has "redefined" this year's normal election.
They'll use essentially the same process, the dates will have to change, there
will seven seats up for election.  Smart money would say this process won't be
completed within 90 days, but if other aspects of the process are handled
correctly it's still possible for it to look like a good-faith effort, IMO.]

We spent quite some time discussing the matter of campaign statements.  Mary
said that a number of members have communicated with her suggesting that the
usual 100-word limit is too low.  They haven't decided what their rule will
be yet.  (She did say that they always try to do a minimum of censoring, that
they try to let anything which sounds professional stand in the candidate's
own words.)  [This time, that may be a more difficult line to draw than has
usually been the case, since this time there are real issues.]

I suggested that the matter of campaign statements might be an area where
some advance discussion with all candidates could yield an atmosphere of
cooperation, and defuse a potential confrontation.  It sounded to me like
they hadn't thought of the idea, but Mary didn't sound like a reasonable
proposal would be turned down.  She did say that she needs communications
to be directly with her, either phone or paper mail.  (I offered the thought
that DCU really should be hooked up to the e-net, considering that even some
customers are.  I think she agreed.  She indicated that it's being looked
into, although I wouldn't expect that anything can happen in time to help
with the Special Election.)

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
399.1		CVG::THOMPSON	Radical Centralist	`Fri Nov 22 1991 10:34`	23
	>There most likely will be staggered terms, so that all 7 terms don't expire >at the same time. (This creates certain questions about how the election >will have to be run, and Mary indicated that some of them are still being >worked out.) There are two ways this can be done. The simple way is for the three year slots to go to the top vote getter(s), the two year slot(s) to the next high, and so on. That's easy to do but could wide up in people on the board who only have one year left to have three after the election. The other way is for people to run for particular slots. This would be more of a head to head situation. It's how I would do it if I were the board. One then would hope that everybody signs up for the three year slot. Although if the board believes that they'll get all the vote anyway the other solution allows a clean winner take all situation. I'm not sure which I'd prefer. I'm not sure it really makes a big difference. Especially if one expects people to win or lose based on merit. What probably should be done is what ever is easiest to set up and administer. And cheapest. Alfred
399.2		TOMK::KRUPINSKI	Repeal the 16th Amendment!	`Fri Nov 22 1991 10:40`	8
	> The simple way is for the three year slots to go to the top vote > getter(s), the two year slot(s) to the next high, and so on. This seems such a simple and obvious solution that I wonder why there is even any doubt of using it. Tom_K
399.3		CNTROL::MACNEAL	ruck `n' roll	`Fri Nov 22 1991 10:52`	5
	The DCU has already made clear their interpretation of the term 'call' with their handling of the Special Meeting. I don't see the elections being handled any differently. They will 'call' elections within 90 days meaning they will announce them in that time period. Logistically, I don't think they could do anything else.
399.4	Please no separate slot running	SMAUG::GARROD	An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late	`Fri Nov 22 1991 11:42`	7
	I believe that there should be no running for particular slots. After the 7 winners are chosen there should be a process to decide on what gets what term. I'd suggest the 7 winners discussing amongst themselves. If there is any disagreement then the one with the highest vote gets the longer term. Dave
399.5		GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ	Someday, DCU will be a credit union.	`Fri Nov 22 1991 12:00`	16
	RE: .4 > I believe that there should be no running for particular slots. I agree 110%. > After the 7 winners are chosen there should be a process to decide > on what gets what term. I'd suggest the 7 winners discussing amongst > themselves. I disagree 110% (?). The process should be completely defined before the election is held. The assignment of terms should not be dependent on the people who happen to win, but the vote totals. Like Tom said earlier, it seems so obvious and fair.
399.6	OK provision for trading terms then	SMAUG::GARROD	An Englishman's mind works best when it is almost too late	`Fri Nov 22 1991 12:06`	9
	Re .5 OK I modify my proposal. The terms should be defined by the vote totals. But the winners can discuss amongst themselves and trade positions if they MUTUALLY agree to do so. You never know there may be some people who don't want a 3 year term. Maybe they'd like to work hard for a year or two and then allow new blood onto the board. Dave
399.7		TOMK::KRUPINSKI	Repeal the 16th Amendment!	`Fri Nov 22 1991 12:08`	6
	> Maybe they'd like to work hard for a year or two and then allow > new blood onto the board. Such a person could simply resign, no? Tom_K
399.8		CFSCTC::AHERN	Dennis the Menace	`Fri Nov 22 1991 16:05`	17
	RE: .4 >I believe that there should be no running for particular slots. I disagree. In town elections we often have varying terms available for the same office. Say, for example, a Selectman resigned midway through a 3 year term. At the next election, there would be a 1-year term open to fill the unexpired vacancy. There would also be positions coming up for the regualar roatation which may or may not have incumbents. One of the attractions in having varying terms to run for is that you may get someone who is willing to commit to serving a 1-year term, if elected, but who would be reluctant to try for the three year term in case they decided it wasn't something they really wanted to do forever. There should be people interested in taking out papers for 1-year or 2-year terms.
399.9		GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ	Someday, DCU will be a credit union.	`Fri Nov 22 1991 16:37`	7
	RE: term slots So you could end up with somebody receiving more votes than another candidate, but since they happened to be in the wrong slot, they wouldn't win the seat?
399.10		SSDEVO::EGGERS	Anybody can fly with an engine.	`Fri Nov 22 1991 17:10`	28
	It's well known that there is no way to have multiple people run for multiple seats and have a "fair" result for all definitions of "fair". Scientific American has published articles on this. What you can do is list the various goals you want to achieve, put them in some order, and then devise a selection process that will deliver the high priority goals at the expense of the low-priority ones. That's the best you can do. My favorite is to have all the candidates collect votes, and then the highest vote getters fill the longest terms. It is very simple and it appears fair to most people. As with any other scheme, it has some disadvantages. Here are some more interesting questions: 1. If there are 7 seats to be filled, does each DCU member get 7 votes? If not, how many votes? Whatever the number, call it N. I presume 1 =< N =< 7. 2. Can all of a member's N votes be cast for one candidate or is there a maximum M, where 1 =< M =< N? What is the value of M? My preference is for N to be the number of positions to be filled, and for M to equal N. That way a voter can cast all of his votes for one person in order to (help) insure that he gets some representation. Your mileage may differ.
399.11		CNTROL::MACNEAL	ruck `n' roll	`Fri Nov 22 1991 17:37`	3
	I think the voting process calls for the voter to place 1 vote for each candidate up to the number of vacant seats. In this case each member would be able to vote for up to 7 candidates.
399.12	KISS principle all the way	SSBN1::YANKES		`Sat Nov 23 1991 20:24`	12
	Please, please, lets keep it simple. (A very presumptious statement, of course, since we aren't setting the rules.) Everyone gives a single vote for any number of candidates from 1 to 7, and the winning candidates get the seats in the order that the top vote-getter gets a 3 year seat, etc. Having candidates run for particular seats, or invoking bizarre voting schemes from Scientific American is sure to really confuse the general DCU populace. -craig
399.13		CFSCTC::AHERN	Dennis the Menace	`Sat Nov 23 1991 21:17`	15
	RE: .12 >Having candidates run for particular seats, or invoking bizarre >voting schemes from Scientific American is sure to really confuse the >general DCU populace. I don't see what's confusing about it. Any candidate that want to run has to decide which seat to go after. I don't see how you can have it any other way. You can't have the whole board running for the same length of time and running in every election, can you? Doesn't make sense. You've got to have staggered terms. I realize it makes it a bit of a crap shoot for prospective candidates, but that's life.
399.14		SSDEVO::EGGERS	Anybody can fly with an engine.	`Sun Nov 24 1991 01:52`	3
	There is nothing complicated, confusing, or bizarre about any of the three or four schemes that have been suggested. All of them have been used successfully many times.
399.15		GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ	Someday, DCU will be a credit union.	`Mon Nov 25 1991 08:58`	5
	RE: .14 Where has this cast 7 votes for 1 candidate been used before? (outside of Chicago of course 8-)
399.16	Re .15 - Cumulative voting	STAR::PARKE	True Engineers Combat Obfuscation	`Mon Nov 25 1991 09:42`	8
	Many corporations are changing (under pressure from stock holders) to this form ov voting. I don't tend to like it personally, but it does allow "raders" for force in their own representatives (or other to force out specific candidates) by being able to vote #shares x #available positions in any fashion you want (i.e. you own 1000 shares in a 3 position election, you have 3000 votes to spread around). Bill
399.17	"Keep it simple -- make it fun"	WLDBIL::KILGORE		`Mon Nov 25 1991 10:52`	9
	I hope the rules look as much like previous DCU elections as possible; that is, each voter may vote once for each of one to n candidates, depending on the seats available (which hopefully will be 7). In light of the fact that all incumbents could be unseated, I also favor assigning varied length terms, with the longest terms going to the higest vote-getters, as the simplest scheme to maintain the nornal 2-2-3 rotation.
399.18		OASS::MDILLSON	Generic Personal Name	`Tue Nov 26 1991 09:18`	1
	Sounds like Australian Ballot time to me.