Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01421)

Eldon:

It was very Theosophical of you for your forthright and quick response.

There is a legal issue that is involved here regarding some of the members
who were not sent the ballots even though they voted in the last bylaws change.

Even though the my message was Faxed to John Algeo early Saturday, (An
e-mail message would have saved me long distance toll charges for Fax as it
was sent on my dime not that of TSA; But e-mail communication at TSA is
still not very satisfactory). I did not receive any response either on
Saturday, Sunday or Monday. It was only after giving ample time to John, I
posted it here.

Let us wait and see, whatever happens.

        ...doss

PS: I am fairly familiar with your role in that I was a database person in
my last job quite some years ago. I am in my present vocation by "accident"
if you believe in accidents!!!

============================================================================
========
At 11:34 PM 4/29/96 -0400, you wrote:
>MKR:
>
>I was reading your letter to John Algeo regarding the TSA ballots,
>and think that I can answer your questions. I can tell you what
>rules were applied to determine which members would be sent a
>ballot, since I wrote a new program to implement the rules.
>
>You also might want to note that I also wrote and ran a report
>that lists all members, showing who would be sent a mailing.
>For those that were not to receive a ballot, the report listed
>the reason(s) why that person was excluded. Why? So that at a
>later date, if someone wanted to know why they did not get a
>ballot, they could find out. Without the report, the membership
>database could change over time, and it might not be possible
>to determine what a member's records showed at that time.
>
>What are the rules? (Note that I don't have the program in
>front of me, and I'm recalling these from memory.)
>
>1. Someone must be an active member, not having been lapsed
>   for non-payment of dues.
>
>2. We must have a valid mailing address for the member. (Otherwise
>   a mailing label will be generated but not sent out.)
>
>3. The member must not be in the prisoner category. (Prisoners
>   get reduced dues, but don't vote or get "The American
>   Theosophist.")
>
>4. The member must have been a member in good standing for
>   the past two continuous years. This means the member must
>   have joined at least two years ago, and not have let their
>   dues lapse for four-or-more months during that period
>   before being reinstated.
>
>> It has come to my attention that members who have not been TSA
>> members for two years as of January 1996 have not received their
>> ballots.
>
>This should not happen except for one of the above reasons.
>Such members should contact the membership department and
>ask why they were excluded from the mailing. The membership
>department can look at the reason(s) from the eligible-voters
>report.
>
>>These include the members who voted in the last ballot to
>>change the bylaws of TSA.
>
>Since the two-years continuous membership rule was not in effect
>at that point, you're probably right about this.
>
>>By excluding those who have not been members for two
>>years but who voted in the bylaws change, in effect the two
>>year voting rule is being applied retroactively. It is
>>common knowledge that this kind of retroactive application
>>is considered serious disenfranchisement of the voting
>>rights of the members. I hope this above non mailing of the
>>ballots to the above class of members is an oversight.
>
>This is a matter of interpretation of the new bylaws. That would
>be up to the TSA Board to decide. If you want to make a case
>that people having been members for less than two years but
>who have already voted be excluded from the new rules, it would
>have to be quickly made.
>
>Based upon the report that was run, it is possible to determine
>who was excluded from receiving a ballot *solely* based upon
>the two-year rule. And it would be further possible to narrow
>them down to those that had joined soon enough to have voted
>for/against the bylaws earlier in the year. From that list, a
>second set of labels *could* be generated, if that is what is
>decided.
>
>I'm not, though, involved in the political side of things. My
>support is simply in providing computer services to the
>membership department. I *ask* what are the rules, and try to
>clarify them so that I can accurately program to them. I don't
>decide *what* they are. But being a database person, I can
>come up with whatever is needed as people decide things or
>change their minds.
>
>-- Eldon
>