[Community-Discuss] [members-discuss] Faulty result for Western Africa in AfriNIC AGMM Elections
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Wed May 30 18:57:11 UTC 2018
> On May 30, 2018, at 11:13 , Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 30/05/2018 19:20, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>> Owen,
>>
>> 2018-05-29 22:34 GMT+00:00 Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com <mailto:owen at delong.com>>:
>> Arnaud,
>>
>> While I agree that additional clarity is needed and I agree that there is some validity to the claim that none of the above MAY not have been a legitimate choice to place on the ballot, I think we cannot go changing the rules of the election and violating the expectations of the voters, membership, and community after the election has run.
>>
>> Voters, membership and community are saying: <<a mistake has been made; let's fix it!>>
>
> And members are saying "We are happy with the outcome" (I am, anyway). The only folk that should be commenting on this are the voting membership.
To be clear, while I’m neither a voter nor a member, I am a member of the community. I’m saying:
1. A mistake was made in the writing of unclear election guidelines.
2. No mistake was made in the conduct of the election.
3. Let’s fix it by amending the election guidelines to provide greater clarity
in the future.
However, even if one accepts that a mistake was made in the conduct of the election, as you assert (I continue
to disagree, but let’s assume that is the case).
>> Nobody raised an objection to the presence of none of the above on the ballot for seat 2 prior to or during the election.
>>
>> No one is raising objection even now on this option being on the ballot as the guidelines are clear on that. the issue at hand is the correct implementation of the guidelines as written.
So let me get this straight…
You’re arguing that it was appropriate for voters to have the choice of “none of the above” even for seat 2, but, that
any voter which chose that option should then be disenfranchised by placing one of the other candidates in the board seat in spite of the fact that “none of the above” won the election for seat 2?
Or are you arguing that neither of the candidates should be seated, but the board should not be allowed to fill the seat?
What is this correct implementation you are arguing for? I am lost as to what, exactly you want at this point.
>> Since there were more than enough voters who selected none of the above to change the result among the remaining two candidates, it is not legitimate to simply discard the none of the above votes and declare one of those candidates a winner. Indeed, I would argue that is the worst possible choice among all other options.
>>
>> The other options as I see it are:
>>
>> 1. Allow the board to treat the seat as vacant and appoint a board member until the
>> next AGMM.
>>
>> 2. Treat none of the above as a valid election result (in which case it should be
>> considered the same for all 3 seats) and preclude the board from appointing
>> anyone to the seat(s) until an election can be run.
>>
>>
>> 3. Treat none of the above as a valid election result only for seat 2 and preclude
>> the board from appointing seat 2 while still allowing them to appoint seats 5
>> and 6.
>>
>> As I see it, the best option is option 1. It allows the organization to proceed with a full board until the next AGMM where a hopefully more effective election can be accomplished.
>>
>> I think option 2 is bad because it leaves the board precariously short-handed with only 5 of the expected 8 members, including the CEO. (The 3 elected members which remain, whoever is appointed to fill Haitham’s vacancy, and the CEO).
>>
>> The problem I have with option 3 is I have trouble justifying treating the election of “none of the above” differently in this circumstance than in the case of a single unopposed candidate. In both cases, more voters felt that they didn’t want any of the options on the ballot and voted not to elect any fo the candidates. The outcome is, IMHO, the same regardless of the number of candidates and should be handled identically.
>>
>> Why? There are places in the world where "none of the above" is on ballot and has not effect on the results
>
> What would the point of that be then - or are people confusing "None of the above" with "Abstain” ?
Usually one abstains (on a written ballot) by simply not chosing any of the candidates. In some cases, there is a candidate selection for “abstain”.
I’ve never seen an election where “none of the above” was offered as a choice and treated as equivalent to abstaining.
A vote for “none of the above” should be treated as an affirmative vote against all of the candidates on the slate. In the case where “none of the above” gets more votes than any other candidate, no candidate from the slate should be considered eligible for the position in question.
>
>> and candidates with the highest votes wins. It is matter of the elections rules. In the current situation, the guidelines are clear and explicit on how we should handle the results. So let follow it and engage on discussions for amending the rules if we see need to do so.
>
> I was on the Board when this was introduced (6 or so years back?). Its doing exactly what it was intended to - that if a person does not like *anyone* on the list of choices - the member can instead select "none of the above". Why does this seem so hard to grasp? I also fail to understand why this is fine when there is only one natural person on the list but not fine when there is more than one natural person on the list.
Agreed. The rules come close to saying this explicitly, but unfortunately, there is somewhat valid linguistic construction to claim that “none of the above” isn’t a candidate and therefore… blah blah…
It’s specious. It’s clearly outside the intent and spirit of the rules. It’s much ado about nothing if you ask me.
It clearly argues for clarifying the rules, but it really doesn’t strike me as a valid argument to alter the election result this late in the game.
>> Hopefully additional clarity can be achieved prior to the next election and we won’t have to face this issue again. Personally, I like the idea of having “none of the above” as an option in all cases.
>>
>> Clarity and fairness is the outcome of the complaint regarding seat 2 here imho; for the rest we can agree to disagree.
The only way to achieve fairness at this point, IMHO, is to accept that neither candidate can be seated as they both lost vs. “none of the above”. The complaint here does not rise to the level of undoing the election which would clearly be unfair to the voters who voted “none of the above” (which is a larger number of voters than those voting for either candidate).
If you want to argue that doing so is unfair to the candidate with the most votes, then fine, we’re being unfair to that number of voters. However, I think that’s a superior choice vs. being unfair to the majority of voters who selected either “none of the above” combined with the unknown number of voters who would have selected “none of the above” had the candidate with the least votes not been on the ballot.
>
> I agree to agree with Owen.
Thanks, Mark.
Owen
>
>>
>>
>> Owen
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>> On May 29, 2018, at 14:56 , Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Ashok as a lawyer you know that there is the law and spirit of the law, please read bellow
>>>
>>> 2018-05-25 11:18 GMT+00:00 Ashok <ashok at afrinic.net <mailto:ashok at afrinic.net>>:
>>> Dear All,
>>> I apologize for having missed your rejoinder to my mail.
>>>
>>> Despite the delays, we appreciate your response as the matter is of great concern.
>>>
>>> Your first question regards the reason as to why the same principle has been applied to the election for Seat 2
>>> notwithstanding the fact that there were two candidates.
>>> My response is that an election cannot be run on different principles. In this particular election the option "none of the above " was
>>> introduced for the first time and everyone was aware of this and it applied to all the elections held on that day. The Election guidelines were amended to acomodate this option.
>>>
>>> Yes indeed and the elections guidelines explicitely addressed the case of only a single candidate running for election and the option " none of the above" in this case got more votes than the sole candidate but is very silent in the case of multiple candidates running for elections with the option "none of the above" getting more votes.
>>>
>>> Anytime elections involve the option "none of the above", there are always clear rules on how the results are interpreted and the actions that must be taken when the option "none of the above" get more votes than the multiple candidates.
>>>
>>> It's not my intention to teach you something here, but it does look very bizarre that the legal counsel never bothered to help the board to make the guidelines unambiguous and conform to members expectations.
>>>
>>> Consequently this option has to be taken in consideration when finalising the results.
>>> Where there were two candidates. The options for voters were (1) yes for candidate (1)-((2) yes for candidate 2-(3) yes for non of the above.Each one is mutually exclusive.
>>> Each score to be counted separately. The majority for either option wins the day.
>>>
>>> Following your reasoning above and the guidelines which say the candidate with the highest votes win, the members and community should then accept "none of the above" as the elected candidate and seated although "none of the above " did not go through Nomcom and was not listed on the candidates slates published by Nomcom.
>>>
>>> Which means seat 2 should not be declared vacant to be filled by board.
>>>
>>> Filling seat 2 by board would constitute the violation of "none of the above" rights and of our rules and thus expose us to legal litigation.
>>>
>>>
>>> One should not create a fictitious majority by adding votes polled by (1) & (2) together. The real majority was to all intents and purposes the option which polled the most votes. There is no need to extrapolate or interpret.
>>>
>>> There is No fictitious majority being created. It was just an example of how this case could have been interpreted just like you do have your own interpretation.
>>>
>>> In many cases, abstention is compared to voters in order to decide how to proceed with validating an election and counting results..
>>>
>>>
>>> Where there was one candidate there were two options- Yes for the single candidate or yes for "non of the above"
>>>
>>> The case of a sole candidate is clear as per the guidelines and there are no objections on seat 5 and 6 results.
>>>
>>> My reference to Art 10.2 was based on the decision of the members present at past AGMMs to have the option of rejecting a single candidate or to give their approval to the single candidate, This has occurred more than once.
>>>
>>> And once again, the case of a single candidate is handled as members agreed to and not debated
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>>
>>> Legal Counsel AFRINIC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24/05/2018 21:11, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>>>> Dear CEO and Chairman
>>>>
>>>> It looks like the Legal counsel has not responded to this query bellow regarding this very important issue about the recently concluded elections.
>>>>
>>>> Could you kindly remind him?
>>>>
>>>> Let us address this to a good conclusion in order to enforce the respect of our rules and processes.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Arnaud
>>>>
>>>> Le sam. 19 mai 2018 11:40, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> a écrit :
>>>> Dear Legal Counsel,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your input. Much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Your statements reinforce the interpretation of section 9.2 of the guidelines with the origin of the "none of the above" option in the election process and how votes for this option are considered in the case of one candidate running for election for a seat. [Last bullet point]
>>>>
>>>> Case in which the election becomes a "yes" or "no" vote for the only candidate. This point is clear and accepted and the objection is not for the results for seat 5 and 6.
>>>>
>>>> What has not been clarified is how the same principle came to be applied for the elections for seat 2 which had two candidates running for the seat, one of whom got higher votes than the other, with the total number of members casting votes in excess of those opting out.
>>>>
>>>> You also referred to art 10.2 of the constitution but did not elaborate on the precedence that occurred that has become an integral part of our guidelines. As precedence automatically becomes part of the election guidelines, it is important that we address issues which come up around the election with care and unambiguously.
>>>>
>>>> Can you be so kind to clarify?
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>> Omo
>>>>
>>>> PS: Grateful to listers to please keep this thread confined to the subject.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 May 2018 at 17:17, Ashok <ashok at afrinic.net <mailto:ashok at afrinic.net>> wrote:
>>>> Dear Members and Community,
>>>> Mt views have been sought on the matter under reference.
>>>> Please find same hereunder.
>>>>
>>>> On 17/05/2018 14:04, B
>>>> The Election Process and last AGMM.
>>>>
>>>> The appointment of Directors is carried out during an AGMM of the Company –Art 13.1 of the constitution.
>>>>
>>>> The election of the Directors is carried out in terms of Art 13.2 of the constitution which refers expressly to the election process approved by the Board.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover Art 10.2 of the Constitution refers to precedent applied during an AFRINIC election and which de facto become part of the election guidelines.
>>>>
>>>> The election process as it stands today is the one which was applied during the elections held during the last AGMM without any opposition.
>>>>
>>>> This is what it provides:
>>>>
>>>> 9.2 Paper Ballot on Election Day
>>>>
>>>> The voting conducted during the Annual General Members' Meeting is carried out via paper ballots containing a list of candidate names and a ballot number. Prior to the vote, all members present or participants holding a proxy will be requested to register and validate their membership status.
>>>>
>>>> Voters should only vote for one candidate per category/region. Each mark on a ballot paper represents one vote. A ballot with more than one mark per category/region will be considered spoilt, and not be counted.
>>>> The ballot paper should provide voters with the option to not vote for any candidate (a.k.a. "None of the Above").
>>>> This will be a secret ballot election. An inclusion of any personal data on the ballot paper will invalidate the vote and will be counted as spoilt.
>>>> Elections will be closed as soon as the last member or proxy present in the meeting room casts his/her vote. Candidates with the highest number of votes in each category will be declared winners.
>>>> In the event of a tie for an open position, voting for that position will be repeated (Only by paper ballot) the same day until there is a winner.
>>>> All open positions shall be subject to an election process even if there is only one candidate. In that event, if the option [none of the above] got more votes than the only candidate, then the seat shall be considered vacant and the Board will be requested to apply provisions of the Bylaws to temporarily fill the vacant seat
>>>> The last amendment of the election guidelines introduced the voting option “ None of the Above”. –(Vide second bullet point above.)Those voters who have cast their votes for “ None of the Above” have done so in compliance with the prevailing constitution and these are thus valid votes. Every voter was aware of the new option.
>>>>
>>>> The election guidelines are clear as to what happens when the “ None of the Above” option has a majority.- (Vide last bullet point above.)
>>>>
>>>> The election guidelines must be read as a whole and all the provisions read together.
>>>>
>>>> Legal Counsel –AFRINIC
>>>>
>>>> 17.05.2018
>>>>
>>>> oubakar Barry wrote:
>>>>> Hello Board and Legal Counsel,
>>>>>
>>>>> Good that Omo spotted this.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s a matter of applying the board election process adopted by the board according to section 13.2 of the bylaws.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process <https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process> describes the process and section 9 spells out how to interpret the results in the case there are more than one candidate and in the case there is only one candidate. These two cases are addressed separately and differently.
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s important to hear from the Board and the Legal Counsel, as the elections can be challenged.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please advise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boubakar
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Omo Oaiya <Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net <mailto:Omo.Oaiya at wacren.net>> wrote:
>>>>> Greetings All,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am looking at the BoD election process and it seems to me that the recent e-mail from the Board Chair seeking nominations for vacant seats should not be extended to Western Africa.
>>>>>
>>>>> The particular clause I am referring to is in 9.2 - https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process <https://afrinic.net/en/community/elections/bod-election/process>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elections will be closed as soon as the last member or proxy present in the meeting room casts his/her vote. Candidates with the highest number of votes in each category will be declared winners
>>>>>
>>>>> I see from the list for West Africa that the candidate with the highest number of votes should have been declared winner and this is Dr Ousmane Tessa. (btw, Dr Adewale Adedokun needs his name spelt correctly)
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Western Africa - Seat 2
>>>>>> Dr Adelawe Abedekon - 43
>>>>>> Dr Ousmane Moussa Tessa - 56
>>>>>> None of the above - 78
>>>>>> Result: The seat is vacant
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The results from the other regions are valid and supported by the following clause as they had one candidate.
>>>>>> All open positions shall be subject to an election process even if there is only one candidate. In that event, if the option [none of the above] got more votes than the only candidate, then the seat shall be considered vacant and the Board will be requested to apply provisions of the Bylaws to temporarily fill the vacant seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can AfriNIC and the nomcom please clarify? We should not deprive Dr Tessa of a rightful win …. especially in the circumstances we find ourselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Omo
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Members-Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Members-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Members-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Community-Discuss mailing list
>> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net <mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss>
>
> --
> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa
> mje at posix.co.za <mailto:mje at posix.co.za> Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496
> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za <https://ftth.posix.co.za/>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/community-discuss/attachments/20180530/81fdae57/attachment.html>
More information about the Community-Discuss
mailing list