I’m assuming your team is considered “active” by NAFA? Have you contacted NAFA as the reason you do not receive ballots?

The most recent election included clubs who earned delegates in racing year 2009…which means if your club entered a tournament and raced anytime between October 1, 2007 and September 30, 2009, your club’s contact for NAFA, the “Club Owner” should have received ballots last fall.

The only reason I can think of why this didn’t happen for your club is that maybe NAFA does not have current contact information for your club.

I would definitely be contacting NAFA to find out why you haven’t received those ballots.

Chris

At this time, there is no information or evidence to determine beyond reasonable doubt: 1.) That the ballots were destroyed or, 2.) That the ballots were NOT destroyed, or, 3.) “When” the ballots were destroyed if 1.) is true.

Isn’t it possible Dale saw that most clubs voted their ballots in a block at the same time that he was seeing the percentage of ballots returned from each region?

Percentage of “Returned Ballots” is not related to “block voting” by unique clubs. It is possible that he saw block voting patterns simultaneously with the return percentages. Could you demonstrate a specific example to prove how this is possible?

(do you think we shouldn’t have that information (the percentage of ballots returned) either?)

Perhaps you are just joking again but, I feel like you are attempting to provoke me. The returned percentages have been openly provided to the public for years and have not been cited by any NAFA official as a cause to “limit” the available ballots to be voted by “combining” votes onto a single sheet of paper.
The block voting pattern that was invoked was not made “public knowledge” until well AFTER this information was used to change the format of the ballots. In fact, tracking this information by NAFA would NEVER have been made public if complaints had not been made by Team Owners to NAFA concerning their inability to distribute their club’s earned delegate votes to the individuals within their clubs that they considered to be their club’s “delegate voters”.

So, I believe it is reasonable to continue to ask questions about the proper gathering and application (“use”) of information about the “Public” that NAFA has NOT made available to the public.

I think it is within my rights and my club’s rights to ask questions about “How” NAFA designed and prepared a ballot that does not appear to conform to NAFA’s Corporate Policies and Procedures so that a club can vote their votes as a “combination of both paper and electronic means” and to continue to ask questions until all our doubts are satisfied.

I think it is the responsibility of NAFA to continue to provide answers to questions as long as the questioner can continue to demonstrate their reasons for doubt. “Doubting” does not translate into accusing someone of lying. It means that not all “possibilities” have been fully explained.

There may not be anything in the bylaws prohibiting voting patterns from being analyzed. But, NAFA officials are ethically bound to treat all issues and all candidates (including dogs) fairly and without prejudice. Withholding the “information” that led to a decision to combine the votes onto a single piece of paper may have given one side an “unfair advantage” and I reserve the right to ask questions until I am satisfied that is not the case.

Assuming that enough factual evidence can be brought to public scrutiny to decide these issues.

BTW, did you notice that under “Section 1. Powers. The business of the Corporation shall be managed by and under the direction of the Board of Directors…” ..it refers to the “Board of Directors”. Plural. Dale took sole responsibility for this change in the ballot without seeking consent from the rest of the Board or even inform them of the change. He said this in his post to the FB list and it is confirmed in private email to individual Board members.

Can you provide the section of the By-Laws that supports a lone Board member acting alone? (Not as an “Officer” but, member et al.)

Regarding the destruction of the ballots, do you know for a fact that they were not destroyed by the time the AGM was adjourned, or are you making an assumption? Isn’t it possible Dale saw that most clubs voted their ballots in a block at the same time that he was seeing the percentage of ballots returned from each region? (do you think we shouldn’t have that information either?)

The bylaws do, in fact, give the Board the authority to analyze voting patterns:

ARTICLE IV – BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Section 1. Powers. The business of the Corporation shall be managed by and under the direction of the Board of Directors, which may exercise all powers of the Corporation and do all such lawful acts and things not prohibited by statute or by the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws.

I did not see anything in the bylaws prohibiting voting patterns from being analyzed.

It would be pretty easy to argue that “one person, one vote” is unfair. If you want the bylaws to be revised to eliminate weighted voting, why not “one club, one vote”? Or since you suggest people register to vote with a valid, active CRN, why note one vote per active dog (which to me would mean the dog has earned at least one pt. during the racing year)?

I don’t think there’s any system that couldn’t be argued as unfair in some respect. It seems to me that one vote per dog would be the least unfair. I don’t know that presented with a ballot right now I would vote for that as opposed to one vote per club, I’d have to think about it some more because there’s the whole “flyball is played by clubs” aspect to consider. But I would definitely vote for either of those over one vote per person.

“Dale said the ballots’ code numbers identify which votes come from the same clubs (but not which club)…..it’s all based on the codes. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was the first several characters of the code were the same for ballots from the same club. As to why, well, I would think the answer is to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.”

The By-Laws clearly state that the ballots shall be destroyed after reporting the results at the AGM. It doesn’t provide for “exceptions”. If Dale is in possession of “codes” that represent a unique club “identifier” then, the electronic form of NAFA’s ballots have not been “destroyed”. They still exist in code form. They are still associated with a unique club. That condition violates the By-Laws.

The By-Laws also do not provide any Election official or committee member the authority to “to analyze voting patterns in whatever way the organization chooses.” So, although you may see it as NAFA’s “right”, that premise is not supported in NAFA’s By-Laws.

Now, “why?” would destruction of the ballots be specifically addressed in NAFA’s By-Laws? I am theorizing here but, I believe that it is recognized that there is potentially much more information contained in those ballots in whatever form they exist (paper or electronic) than just “to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.” So, that is Dale’s explanation offered but, it is NOT the only “possible” explanation that may exist. I can’t prove that Dale had more than one motive but, you can’t prove that he did not. That’s why there is a rule.

Rules are meant to be followed by EVERYBODY. If Dale had a proposal that would “streamline the voting process” then he should have presented that to the BoD and changed the By-Laws or Corporate P & P PRIOR to the Election cycle.

Tracking how people vote is NOT “crucial” to an election. Determining how many votes were cast for a candidate or cast for or against a proposal IS. Using information extracted from past election balloting has the potential to give one side an “unfair advantage”. That is why the By-Laws were made and should not be broken because it creates doubt in the integrity of the system.

“Why push so hard for a change that could create a lot more work for people who already volunteer a significant amount of time keeping the organization running, and that could significantly increase the cost of holding elections? Change can be good when there are clear benefits. Change simply for the sake of change, not so much.”

I want to thank you for challenging me to crystallize what I am advocating. At first, all I wanted was my ballot back. That was the way things were done in the past. Your post has clarified to me why it is NOT possible to fix this. By assigning all the delegate “votes” to one person, by having a “weighted vote”, that is an “unfair system” by definition.

I do not advocate change just for change’s sake. I advocate changing (reforming) an unfair system into a “fair” system. Not weighted by any factor but by reducing everybody to just one vote. “One Person, One Vote”

The weighted system delays the AGM because at the end of of the racing year, racing results have to be tallied in order to determine how many votes each club earned. Any delays in receiving tournament results also delays vote calculations. Why defend keeping the “status quo” system (that is weighted and unfair) that continuously creates a LOT more work every year for the volunteers who keep this organization running and will eventually probably have to be outsourced in order to be accomplished at who knows what cost to NAFA?

The clear benefit for “one person, one vote” is this: It is fair to everybody. Costs for holding elections can go down by moving to a simplified, all electronic voting system. You register at NAFA with a valid, active CRN and email address and receive your ballot by email. Your vote would not be associated with any other “code” signifying your association with any unique club identifier.

So far, the only arguments against change has been offered by people who offer “the system is what they know”. Show me how “what you know” (status quo) is what is “best” for NAFA”. What is best for NAFA is what can be proven to be “Fair” and equitable to everybody.

Chris

There are still some points that I don’t understand. You say you believe NAFA doesn’t know which candidates your club voted for, but in the next paragraph you say it’s none of NAFA’s business how your club’s delegates vote their ballots.

I didn’t keep his post that was on the flyballdogs list, but if I remember correctly Dale said the ballots’ code numbers identify which votes come from the same clubs (but not which club). So the envelopes have nothing to do with it, it’s all based on the codes. I don’t remember exactly, but I think it was the first several characters of the code were the same for ballots from the same club. As to why, well, I would think the answer is to evaluate and try to determine if there’s a way to streamline the voting process.

Tracking how people vote is kind of crucial to an election, isn’t it? As long as anonymity is maintained, I think it’s NAFA’s right to analyze voting patterns in whatever way the organization chooses. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about this point.

Thanks for the specific example of an issue that went unaddressed. That is much more informative than vague references to “groups” being unheard, etc.

Regarding “NAFA Supporters,” it’s unfortunate that people who play flyball can sometimes be rude. I agree that comments like the one you mentioned are uncalled for. It seemed in your first reference that you were characterizing a large number of people as intolerant of opposing views about NAFA and that’s what I questioned. I’m not clear on what some rude remarks to people who play U-FLI have to do with the topic of who should vote in NAFA elections.

The polling information was interesting. I wish I had the time to look at the research myself. Oh well.

I was not responding to your questions at the end of Post #46, I was addressing your blanket statement that changing voting procedures “will offer an avenue that will increase NAFA’s players feeling a sense of belonging to NAFA and, therefore, more ‘loyalty’ to NAFA.”

As you admit, you don’t know what affect it will have on how people feel about NAFA. It might have little or even none. You’ve said it will make little substantive difference to the outcomes of elections. So let me ask you, Chris. Why push so hard for a change that could create a lot more work for people who already volunteer a significant amount of time keeping the organization running, and that could significantly increase the cost of holding elections? Change can be good when there are clear benefits. Change simply for the sake of change, not so much.

What I am in disagreement about in Dale’s “explanation” is HOW does he know that ALL clubs vote as a BLOCK (with the exception of one or two). Is he keeping track of the voting patterns of the paper ballots NAFA received? How does he know which ballots came in which envelope? And, WHY? does it matter if clubs vote their votes in a block or not? It is NONE of NAFA’s business how my club’s delegates vote their ballots.

The electronic ballots are truly troublesome. You enter a code to signify you are in possession of a valid ballot. How far does this identifier continue with the system? It may not identify MY club but, I can assure you that not only does it bother me but, my club captain/owner and those in MY club who used to have their own ballot to cast since my club owner would distribute them individually in past elections. As a club, we do not feel that NAFA has the right to track “what” or “how” ANY club casts or retains or distributes their votes.

The NAFA Corporate Policies & Procedures states that delegates may vote by paper or electronic means or any combination of both. This years ballot could NOT be voted a “combination of both” and MY CLUB received NO ANSWER when this problem was brought up to NAFA through official channels. That is the way NAFA “dismissed” and “disregarded” my club in this most recent NAFA election. …but, that is the subject of a separate article on this blog.

I do not differentiate which of my comments are simply “my opinion” and which are rooted in facts because I TRUST readers to be intelligent enough to make the distinction on their own. By the same token, I can tell when you are stating an opinion, Dede. You don’t need to tag it as “your opinion”. It shortens things up a bit.

The “NAFA Supporters” I’m referring to are the ones who make crude remarks in Captain’s meetings against U-FLI players. They are the ones who will answer complaints about NAFA with, “…well, if you don’t like it, go play U-FLI”. I will not make a “nebulous generalization” that they are everywhere but, they are in enough different places and have done these things to enough different people to know that they are real, they exist and that exact numbers are not necessary to know it is a fact.

“You can’t possibly know what the effect(s) would be of changing the voting procedures. It might change the outcomes of elections. We wouldn’t know unless we had a vote the current way, then had the same vote with whatever you want the “new” way to be and compared the results.”

Scientific poll takers accept that a small sample containing a “representative” portion of the larger population can be an accurate predicter of the outcome of elections within a “margin of error” usually described as + or – (3%-5%.) Having proved that over many, many elections in different places over many years, accepting that method saves a lot of time over taking two different elections and comparing results. Extrapolating that information and applying it to the results of the recent election, (and taking the most “conservative” approach to calculating error) I find that Karen would have won the election with a 75% (vs 79.84% actual) vote total, Leerie would still win with 61% (vs 66.61%) vote total and Dana would still win with 61% (vs 66.34%) vote total. Of course, that is “theory” and not a fact but it is theory based on accepted scientifc practices and research.

“You also don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. How do you know how my club members currently feel? Or the members of any club other than your own? That’s what I mean about nebulous generalizations. ”

No, I don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. Those are “rhetorical questions” asked to give people something to think about but, not necessarily to be answered since all any “individual” can do is provide their own answer to such a question. Again, I don’t think I need to tag that as “opinion” since that is self-evident.

Dede, I’m glad that you report your club members are perfectly happy with the way things are now. Would they be unhappy if NAFA decided to change the way we vote and give everyone a ballot? And, if it doesn’t make any difference to them or you either way, why get so worked up over a difference of opinion?

Respectfully submitted,

Chris

There is a big difference between accepting another person’s viewpoint and accusing someone of lying, as it appears you are accusing Dale of not telling the truth about the ballots. I have no problem with people holding and expressing different views, I have no problem with people having heated arguments as long as they stick to the actual issues and are based on fact and don’t deteriorate into personal attacks and unfounded accusations.

How many “NAFA Supporters” seem to think you must agree with them or you are hurting NAFA? How do you know? Who are the people you are talking about? I don’t think not agreeing with anyone hurts NAFA. I don’t think questioning NAFA hurts NAFA. I don’t even think making baseless accusations hurts NAFA. But making baseless accusations does get in the way of having a meaningful debate. If you stick to facts you can substantiate, or state your personal opinions (and identify them as such) and don’t make nebulous generalizations, we’d might actually learn something from each other. There’s a while before the next election. Inflammatory rhetoric isn’t going to accomplish much now.

I am owner of a new, slow club. I feel included. Please present some numbers regarding all these disenfranchised masses.

Sometimes the answer is no. Sometimes things don’t go your (generic “your”) way. Sometimes you vote for the losers. That doesn’t necessarily mean your views are disregarded and dismissed.

If you mean the “delegates” are no longer being heard, I’ll say this. Having ballots sent to individual delegates is not much more inclusive than having them sent to club owners. My club earned 2 votes and we have 6 members, so 4 people still would have been left “without a voice.” Is that really better? Why?

There was another comment in Post 33 (different author than Post 28) that took a statement about NAFA voting and then compared it to voting in US elections. That’s another example of a comment that makes reasonable debate difficult if not impossible. Statements about NAFA voting do not in any way correlate to voting in the US political system. Something very specific that Dana said about NAFA voting was twisted, with the author attributing something to him that he never said or even implied.

Referring to Post 46:
You can’t possibly know what the effect(s) would be of changing the voting procedures. It might change the outcomes of elections. We wouldn’t know unless we had a vote the current way, then had the same vote with whatever you want the “new” way to be and compared the results.

You also don’t know how it will affect people’s feelings about NAFA. How do you know how my club members currently feel? Or the members of any club other than your own? That’s what I mean about nebulous generalizations.

It’s my considered opinion that changing the voting procedures would not improve players’ experience with NAFA. Nor do I believe changing the voting procedures would have any measurable effect on the growth of the sport.
My club members are perfectly happy with their experience of NAFA right now. That might change in future of course, but knowing them I doubt being able to cast their own votes would make a difference one way or the other.

I find TWO things that are interesting about this “reasoning”.

First, what makes you think that the way we have NAFA’s voting system set up today that those who receive ballots to vote are not already “voting for what they know and not necessarily for what is best”? Don’t most of us reason that what we know IS best?

Second, your “reasoning” that you are using to argue against change is the same argument we are using “for” change. That is, the current “system” is “what you know” but, is not necessarily what is “best”.

You have to have the ability to clearly see both sides of a question (without bias) in order to choose what is best. So, play “devil’s advocate” with yourself for just a bit and ask, “what is the worst case scenario” if we allow everyone to vote in NAFA elections?

Changing the procedures on how NAFA votes and finding a way to include more people involved in NAFA to cast a vote will not substantially change the outcomes of future elections. But, it will offer an avenue that will increase NAFA’s players feeling a sense of belonging to NAFA and, therefore, more “loyalty” to NAFA.

Would that improve NAFA players flyball experience with NAFA? Would that contribute to increasing NAFA’s growth of our sport?

Think about that.

Chris