| Sam Sloan 2005-08-19, 8:32 pm |
| On 19 Aug 2005 06:13:16 -0700, "George John" <george@neosoft.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
>Mike Nolan wrote:
>
>[SNIP]
>
>
>I absolute agreement with your assessment.
>
>The primary problem I (and not doubt others) had with Sam Sloan's
>nominations was they were for two people who had no idea that they were
>being nominated. They had not been asked if they wished to run or if
>elected if they could or would serve.
>
>This raises a point of order question, what does Robert's Rules have to
>say about nominations in this context? Is it permissible to nominate
>someone without their knowledge or permission, and with no assurance
>that they can or will serve if elected?
>
>What was decided was there would be a vote on the four nominees, and if
>that failed, additional nominees would be accepted, and there would be
>a secret, paper ballot to decide the four committee members. But, as
>fully expected, the four nominees were accepted by a nearly unanimous
>vote, and plan B was moot.
>
>[SNIP]
>
>Best regards,
>
>George John
The problem we all have is that this item was a major by-laws change
and was NOT announced on the advance agenda. Under this motion, the
role of the Secretary in supervising the USCF Election was taken away
and given to four cronies of Mike Nolan. I think it is highly
objectionable that it was done in this way and I believe that the
delegates did not understand what was at stake. What was at stake is
that in the recent election Beatriz Marinello and Leroy Dubeck took
away the right under the by-laws of the Secretary to run the election
and gave it to Glenn Petersen, but since Petersen was ill it gave the
job to Peter Tamburro.
Tamburro did a good job but obviously Beatriz Marinello was not happy
with the result especially because her slate lost by a 2-1 margin.
Stan Booz, the spokesman for Beatriz, accused a member of the counting
committee of "book cooking".
At the meeting in Phoenix just concluded, Miki Nolan made two motions,
neither of which were on the agenda. The first was to form a committee
of four to run the election. Don Schultz, the secretary, objected but
nobody else was paying attention so the motion passed overwhelmingly.
The second motion was to select Nolan and three of his friends to
serve on his committee. Since there was no advance notice of this,
there was no time to form an alternate slate. When I nominated Pete
Tamburo and Ken Thomas, both of whom would easily have been elected
over the Nolan candidates, Nolan objected and insisted that there be
an up or down vote on the four he selected and the two I had nominated
not be allowed to run against them..
The fact that the two persons I nominated were not present was not
relevant because if they had been elected (as they would have been)
they could have simply declined and the next two down would have taken
their places.
I suspect that what Mike Nolan & Co did was illegal or improper in
some way. I would hope that somebody can research this question and
see if this was proper.
Sam Sloan
|