<html>
<body>
At 08:20 PM 4/27/06, Rob Hall wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<font face="arial">The right to accept the nomination or withdraw was
solely Bhavins. I would also point out that Bhavin had no need to
actually withdraw. He never accepted the nomination. He took
the high road to take the time to write us a letter and even explained
some of his reasoning's. But as of midnight last night, he was
actually no longer a candidate as he had not accepted the nomination by
the close of business. He did absolutely nothing
inappropriate</font></blockquote><br>
Dear Rob:<br><br>
I appreciate the time you have taken to pen this note. <br><br>
Bhavin *did* accept in a timely manner. His withdrawal *after* the
26th provoked my comments:<br><br>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 01:31:44 +0530<br><br>
Dear Marcus,<br><br>
Thanks for your nomination. Happy to accept it.<br><br>
Bhavin<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<font face="arial">I also would point out that the current candidates
must still get a minimum number of positive votes from the constituency
to be elected.</font></blockquote><br>
Hmmm, I think there must be 15 ballots cast. But I don't think the winner
needs to have 15.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="arial"> If you
feel the current candidates are not appropriate for whatever reason, you
may exercise your right to vote against them. If the will of the
constituency agrees, then the current nominees will not be elected into
the position. It is the will of the constituency that will
ultimately decide our officers.</font></blockquote><br>
As I say, I think you are wrong on this point:<br><br>
Rules of Procedure, III, 11. <br><br>
Notwithstanding Sections 9 above, if in any election fewer than the
larger of a) 10% of those Members registered to vote or b) 10 Members
registered to vote actually vote<font color="#FF0000"> (including any
abstentions)</font>, such election will be deemed null and void and of no
effect, and a revote on the same ballot shall take place.<br><br>
<font face="arial">Rob, when Jon and I were drafting the Rules, we tried
to require 15 but Jon found that the By-Laws specified the lower number.
<br><br>
By-Laws, 4.3.5:<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">4.3.5. One nominee - In cases where
one nomination has been made and accepted as of the closing of the
nomination process per Section II
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" color="#FF0000">[Now III]
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> of the Registrar Constituency Rules
of Procedure, the Constituency shall hold an election per such
section. If the candidate does not receive at least 50% of the
votes cast, such candidate shall not be declared the winner and the
Constituency will open a second election process for such
position(s).<br><br>
</font><font face="arial">end quote:<br><br>
That does not seem to require 10 minimum "yes" votes. I
think 5 out of 10 total votes, including abstentions, would be sufficient
to elect an officer.<br><br>
By-Laws:<br><br>
</font><font face="Courier New, Courier"><b>4.4. Quorum. <br>
4.4.1. Unless specified otherwise within these Bylaws, a meeting or
teleconference with a majority of the Executive Committee, Elected
Representatives or any committee of the Constituency in attendance shall
constitute a quorum.
</font><font face="Courier New, Courier" color="#FF0000">An affirmative
vote of at least one half plus one of all ballots cast, provided the
total number of those voting is not less than ten percent of the total
number of voting Members to a minimum of ten Members, in favor of an
amendment is necessary for adoption.<br><br>
</b></font><font face="arial">end quote:<br><br>
This section may or may not cover elections of officers. The word
"amendment" in the last line casts a shadow on that
assumption.<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<font face="arial">We count on our secretary to know our bylaws and to
enforce them without any personal bias.</font></blockquote><br>
I believe I have always done so and continue to do so. The
withdrawal of Bhavin (who *did*, indeed, accept) *after* the close was
just plain counter to common sense.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font face="arial"> To
somehow try and use your position as secretary to re-open nominations
because of your personal beliefs or your thinking that your nomination or
vote was wasted is not appropriate.</font></blockquote><br>
I guess we differ on this point. But I recognize your right to a
different interpretation.<br><br>
Cordially, BobC<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Rob.</font></blockquote></body>
</html>