Most people remember the debacle of the Bush vs. Gore election of 2000 where the infamous Hanging Chad first debuted. I make light of this merely to get your attention for I know that not many people like talking about politics whatever the form. However, the majority of people reading this should be concerned for this is our sport and unfortunately politics affects some aspects of it, especially in NAFA.
Not long after my last post, Let the People Vote, I received private email concerning the last election complaining of “irregularities” in the NAFA voting process. Obviously, this sparked my curiosity so I fired off some email and talked with several people about what had taken place. What follows is a culmination of what I found. I’m not going to go into a “he said she said” and I will not name anyone. I have contacted NAFA and they assure me that a reply is forthcoming.
I have tried to stay as neutral as I can, but I have offered my opinion. Hopefully, after reading this, you will be able to form your own opinion and I welcome your comments.
The Ballot
This year’s ballot was different than those in the past in that only one ballot was sent out by NAFA. So if your club had 8 votes, they were all on a single ballot. From what I can understand, one or more people complained about the ballot, believing this would cause block voting. In other words, clubs would not be able to split their votes. The word from a Board member was that voting patterns over the last three elections showed that only a few clubs split their votes, so only a single sheet of paper was sent to each club to save money.
The only rule that I could find that would come close to violating the single sheet ballot was in Chapter 4, Delegate Voting, paragraph (d), which states, “Delegate voting may be conducted by paper ballot, electronic balloting, or a combination of both.” Does a single ballot violate this rule since “a combination of both” could not be accomplished with a single ballot?
Not long after a complaint was made (or maybe at the same time), a function on the NAFA balloting website was added to allow club owners to split their ballots. However, there were no instructions on the ballot or the website about making a combination vote.
For me the biggest question is whether the ballots were tabulated correctly, and I have some other concerns too. What is the likelihood of an error by the voter because of the ballot? Could someone voting online think they were casting all of their club votes for a candidate or MVP and only cast a single vote? Was the ballot confusing to the voter? In my opinion a yes answer to any of these questions is a reason for concern.
One other concern I have deals with the destruction of the ballots after the election. The NAFA rule book, Article V, Section 2, Paragraph (h) clearly states, “… The Election Committee shall ensure that all returned ballots are authentic and shall destroy the ballots, after reporting the results, at the adjournment of the Annual General Meeting.” So, if this is the case, how would anyone know the trend and voting patterns of a club or clubs?
The Chat Transcript
The chat transcript that appears on the NAFA website is not a complete record of what transpired during the chat. Apparently, the chat transcripts have always had some minor revisions made to them before being posting to the website and this is something that I never questioned or even knew about. Who would ever think the chat transcript was not a complete and accurate record?
The way I understand it, one of the transcripts had a major change to it because of a reported personal attack toward one of the candidates. I did speak to the person that made the attack and I can only surmise that it wasn’t that bad but since I have not read the original transcript, I really cannot make a judgment.
I don’t like quoting a source but in this case they make a compelling argument, “Imagine if the Kennedy/Nixon debate was edited to remove the sweating from Nixon’s face. Kennedy might have not won that election.” We can only imagine the unknown effects of editing the chat transcript.
Politics get messy sometimes and if you are running for office you just have to take your licks and let the people decide. I am under the opinion that people have a way of seeing the truth no matter what is said. I believe the record is the record and should not be altered.
My Thoughts
What follows is just me talking and really has nothing to do with the election results.
Board Diversity
I would like to see more diverse views in my Board members. If you look at the people that currently serve, most run on a Division 1 team running in the top of their regions. Not that this is particularly bad, but it does breed a certain mind set. Additionally, they hold a point of view that is different from most of the people they serve. This is purely my opinion, but it seems like the same people serve over and over again. When they are not on the Board, they serve in different capacities until they can run again. Serving multiple times brings on a form of elitism, i.e. I know best.
Do term limits sound unreasonable? I am talking about a 2 term maximum for a total of 6 years in an individual’s lifetime. That would give a member 3 years on, 1 year or more off, and then 3 more years if they are selected again.
Board Appointments
Appointments are going to happen and there is just no way around it. However, at the end of the appointment these people run for the board and almost always get elected. To me, this gives the appointee an unfair advantage over anyone outside that wants to run. I would like to see the rule changed so that an appointee cannot run for the Board until one year after leaving their appointment. This means that the vacant position they are filling would go to someone not serving on the Board already. If any appointees would like to serve, they can run in the next election. This would be a much fairer way to handle appointments.
Lastly, I would like to thank all of the NAFA Board members for serving us. I know that they give of themselves more than any of us will really ever know. I know they don’t have an easy job and are called upon to make tough decisions for our sport and I only want the best for each of them.
Larry
5 comments ↓
At one time appointments to the bod were made from the list of people that had previously run for the bod. Somehow the present bod has gotten away from that “precedent that was previously set” (something that they have quoted in some recent decisions). This way of appointment would have been known by one of the present bod members so that couldn’t be an excuse for not using that same way. Maybe something needs to be added to the rules and guidelines regarding this for future appointments.
It will be interesting to see what NAFA has to say. Anybody at the chat willing to comment at this time?
I agree, Julia. It will be interesting to see NAFA’s response to this.
Several random coments here — People in Div 1 clubs are often more outgoing and more *aggressive* if you will so are MORE likely to be involved in the sport, what goes on in it, and more likely to be interested in running it, so they ARE the ones getting elected to the Board. As commented before a LOT of people playing the sport are not interested in the operation or the details — they want to come and run their dogs and go home.
I would like to see a bigger percentage of votes returned each year — I am especially disappointed in the return from Reg 11. More clubs are active than the voting reflects. I didn’t like the block voting — they could have put codes for all the votes on one page and still saved paper. I don’t have a problem with the club owner getting control of the votes — I have some great people on my club, great flyballers… but they are not interested in the politics. They leave it to me to stay informed, tell them of anything they should know, and to do the voting. I DO tell them of the choices, especially if they actually know the people or dogs, and would support their choices IF they made some… but they are like the majority of flyballers — they do not want to add that *responsibility* to their enjoyment of the sport.
Larry I can agree with your idea that someone should serve their 3 years, be off at least a year and then serve 3 more — and then no more BUT NAFA is still going to have to find people to serve who are familiar with what is going on. Bringing new ideas into the org is one thing — bringing people in with no experience, who are not making a living off the org so are not *required* to give it all their attention or effort, who do not meet often — even by teleconference — is going to leave us all with a disadvantaged org. It needs more attention than it is getting NOW… to bar much of its experienced volunteer help could make it even less responsive.
I was on the chat mentioned above — the *attack* wasn’t “that bad” but it did have the effect of a personal attack on a candidate and as Lee responded didn’t really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time).
I have met most of the BOD members at one time or another and I believe most of them are doing what they feel best for the sport overall. Maybe many *bests* are a bit type A for some of us but this is a sport of WINNING as well as EARNING (titles) and if you don’t aim high, you don’t have a top notch sport. Playing with rules and equipment aimed at the BEST will serve more of us in the long run than aiming at a lower bracket. (By the way — when I tell someone what I did over the weekend, they always, ALWAYS ask “did you win ??”)
My answer to the question, “Did you win?” is “My dogs had fun. I had fun. I think that makes us winners!” Unless, of course, we DID have a “First PLace”.
Kidding aside, I was logged on to the “chats” and in the first chat, one candidate had a habit of commenting, “ha, ha” and “LoL” which I don’t have a problem with but, those were edited out. While that doesn’t sound “major”, I think if a candidate isn’t treating an issue seriously, I think voters should know that.
Also, in the second chat, there were some follow up questions asking about who helped out at the CanAm and most of the candidates responded but, that whole exchange was edited out.
As to the alledged “attack” on a candidate, I did not perceive this exchange as an attack at all. It was two candidates with opposing views talking to each other very civilized. (about “Rule” changes) Only one received a warning from the moderator but, I think that was because the candidates were talking to each other and not the questioner. They were discussing “on the topic” and I didn’t think a warning was necessary nor did any of those comments need to be deleted from the transcript.
Frankly, I think it would have been valuable information for the voters because issues debated at the Board are debated among Board members and not the public. There is no “questioner” and I think such an exchange would tell us how a candidate treats someone with an opposing view. Are they polite and respectful? Are their thoughts well reasoned and logical? Or, are they just in some kind of pissing match? Voters have a right to know!
” as Lee responded didn’t really have a place on the chat (my reaction at the time).”
Actually, what Lee responded to remained in the transcript and, although he felt the question belonged in a Leadership Chat, the way the candidates responded to the question would have been valuable to voters. I think people know that non-BoD members may not be privy to all the information that is available to Board members on certain NAFA issues but, “Leadership” as a trait needs to be “demonstrated”. Its one of those intangibles that can’t be defined but, you know it when you see it.
What bothers me about all this is that NAFA has a vested interest in the election results. Since many voters rely on reading chat transcripts to get a feel for who the Board candidates are, I don’t think any NAFA Board members should be involved in “moderating” or “editing”.
It’s the equivalent of holding an election debate on the floor of Congress with the President moderating and C-SPAN editing a transcript. How many would blindly trust that as “reliable” information especially, if your political views were for the “opposition party”?
I’d like to see a “neutral” third party take over the “candidate chats” (like the League of Women Voters does) and moderate it so that the “audience” doesn’t know who asked a question but, the candidates can respond, challenge each other and followup questions come through the moderator.
i-Flyball, would you be interested in hosting such a “chat”?
JMHO
Chris
Leave a Comment