[Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting

Tara Tate ttate
Wed Nov 4 17:08:26 EST 2009


Only working on informal data about how much of the membership typically votes (Board elections, topic ballots, etc), one suggestion I had was either a 25% or 33% membership quorum has to vote in order for the vote to count/pass.  Of those voting, 60% or more have to vote yes.

Again, just throwing out some numbers to get the conversation going.

TT

Best,
Tara L. Tate
Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
Executive Board Member, National Debate Coaches Association
Co-director, The 2009 Glenbrooks
4000 West Lake Avenue
Glenview, IL 60026
(847) 486-4746

>>> Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com> 11/4/2009 3:42 PM >>>
To be clear - my point is not that 60% - or even 75% - is too high a
threshold.  It is perfectly reasonable.

My point is that non-voting should not count as "no."

Imagine an election in which non-participation counted as a vote for the
incumbent.  Elections wouldn't be worth having.

On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:39 PM, Stefan Bauschard <stefan.bauschard at gmail.com 
> wrote:

> It's hard to figure out what the process should be...
>
> -By design, the organization solicits the memberships form individuals who
> are not in any way impacted by its voting decisions....
>
> -60%, 51% -- depends on what it's for, I guess.  51% may be sufficient for
> most things, but for an ethics statement? I don't know. If only 51% vote for
> it, it just risks creating a schism in the organization. "Major" changes--
> not just those involving ethics -- should perhaps require more than 50.01%
> to pass...2/3 is not uncommon in other organizations for major changes..
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree.  We just don't know.
>>
>> I think that proves that the current voting procedure is extremely
>> problematic.  The NDCA shouldn't have to have a Rock the Vote campaign every
>> time it wants a barometer of community opinion.
>>
>> While I suspect it would have passed, we can't say for sure.  My problems
>> with the voting are genuinely procedural, although I wouldn't have thought
>> much about the procedure absent the frustrating substantive outcome.
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Stefan Bauschard <
>> stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is that in this instance it was explicitly explained that not
>>> voting is voting no...so many people who did not vote could potentially
>>> expressing a no vote.
>>>
>>> 28 yes people supported it
>>> 4 no people (probablystrongly) oppsed it
>>> (xy) people did not vote
>>> (x) opposed
>>> (y) didn't care
>>>
>>> Since we have no idea how many peopel are in each category of xy, it's
>>> impossible to speculate whether or not it would have passed if the voting
>>> procedures would have been different.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Speer, Mike <SpeerMik at berkeleyprep.org>wrote:
>>>
>>>> While reasonable people can certainly disagree, the Ethics Statement
>>>> seemed like a pretty gentle nudge in the direction of some community
>>>> norms on these important matters.
>>>>
>>>> If the NDCA members are concerned about the potential chaos of
>>>> unfettered democracy, maybe a rule requiring 60 percent approval of
>>>> respondents would an appropriate compromise.
>>>>
>>>> I am not completely convinced that the majority of the 90 members who
>>>> did not vote intended their "non-vote" to be counted as a "no."
>>>>
>>>> Mike Speer
>>>> Debate Coach
>>>> Director of Technology
>>>> Berkeley Preparatory School
>>>> Tampa, FL 33634
>>>> (813) 777-4298
>>>>
>>>> Berkeley puts people in the world who make a positive difference.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org 
>>>> [mailto:ndca-l-bounces at lists.debatecoaches.org] On Behalf Of Michael
>>>> Antonucci
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 2:53 PM
>>>> To: Tara Tate
>>>> Cc: <ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Ndca-l] Results of the Ethics Statement voting
>>>>
>>>> I feel the 60% threshold should be directly repealed.
>>>>
>>>> If America maintained this voting threshold, we would have lapsed into
>>>> anarchy long ago.
>>>>
>>>> many members of the Ndca are not very participatory.  this is fine.
>>>> It just shouldn't be a block on ever doing anything.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I am not sure how you can repeal the rule absent 60%
>>>> approval?
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 3, 2009, at 2:32 PM, "Tara  Tate" <ttate at glenbrook.k12.il.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The NDCA Ethics Statement failed to receive 60% approval of the
>>>> > membership body.  At the time elections were closed, the NDCA had
>>>> > 122 members.  74 "yes" votes were needed to pass.
>>>> >
>>>> > 32 members did vote in the process.  Of those that did choose to
>>>> > vote, 28 voted yes and 4 voted no.
>>>> >
>>>> > We will be starting a discussion the NDCA listserv about possible
>>>> > amendments to the document (if the body feels like a statement is
>>>> > necessary) and a discussion about the 60% threshold.  The discussion
>>>> > will just be some informal dialogue about how the membership wishes
>>>> > to proceed on this issue (or to proceed at all).
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Best,
>>>> > Tara L. Tate
>>>> > Director of Debate, Glenbrook South (IL)
>>>> > Executive Board Member, National Debate Coaches Association
>>>> > Co-director, The 2009 Glenbrooks
>>>> > 4000 West Lake Avenue
>>>> > Glenview, IL 60026
>>>> > (847) 486-4746
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org 
>>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ndca-l mailing list
>>>> Ndca-l at lists.debatecoaches.org 
>>>> http://lists.debatecoaches.org/listinfo.cgi/ndca-l-debatecoaches.org 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stefan Bauschard
>>>
>>> President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
>>> Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
>>> Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
>>> Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011
>>>
>>>
>>> (c) 781-775-0433
>>> (fx) 617-588-0283
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Antonucci
>> Debate Coach
>> Georgetown University
>> Mobile: 617-838-3345
>> Office: 202-687-4079
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stefan Bauschard
>
> President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
> Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
> Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
> Director of Development & Operations, NFL National Tournament 2011
>
>
> (c) 781-775-0433
> (fx) 617-588-0283
>
>
>
>


-- 
Michael Antonucci
Debate Coach
Georgetown University
Mobile: 617-838-3345
Office: 202-687-4079




More information about the Ndca-l mailing list