Guest Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 At the AACA Board of Directors Meeting held in Philadelphia on February 8, 2001, a proposal was presented in the form of a motion that the requirement that members must vote for exactly 7 candidates on the AACA Ballot be changed to they may vote for any number up to 7. That motion was defeated.<P>A compromise proposal was offered that the requirement be changed from "Vote for 7" to "Vote for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7" That motion was also defeated.<P>In the middle of January, I became aware that the "5 to 7" proposal would be presented as a counter to the "Up to 7" concept. I viewed it to be a fair and reasonable compromise and stated that I would offer no opposition, so long as it was enacted. <B>IT WASN"T!</B><P>Therefore, I am instituting a campaign to petition the AACA Board of Directors to adopt the "Vote for a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 7" concept.<P>The goal of this petition drive is to get 3500 - 5000 signatures, or more if possible. The drive will continue throughout 2001 and up to one week before the 2002 Annual Meeting. It seeks BOTH member and spouse participation. <P>The petition follows. To "sign", please give your name <B>AND</B> membership number. To record a spouse's "signature" give the spouses name separately.<P>Should anyone feel strongly enough on this issue to be interested in circulating written petitions, please e-mail me at HVScotyard@aol.com and I will forward the forms to you. Please be sure to include a mailing address.<P> <B>PETITION</B><P>WE the following named and identified AACA members petition the AACA Board of Directors to change the wording of the AACA ballot instructions which stipulate the number of votes required on the ballot from <BR><B>VOTE FOR 7</B> [no more and no fewer] to <B>VOTE FOR A MINIMUM OF 5 AND A MAXIMUM OF 7.</B><p>[ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: hvs ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Howard V. Scotland, Jr. 780348 LJ<BR>Judith R. Scotland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Deering Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 J. Thomas Deering 216100J<BR>Carolyn A. Deering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Peter M. Gariepy 308238<BR>Jane. C. Gariepy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasBorchers Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Thomas Borchers 004829 I<BR>Oldenburg/Germany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24T42 Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 G. Barker Edwards, Jr. 250702L<BR>Judith Lawrence Edwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Hoover Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Richard A. Hoover Jr. #409952-J<BR>Colleen M. Hoover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SalG (Sal Grenci) Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Salvatore J. Grenci 339830 LJ<BR>Doreen L. Grenci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest snkchevcol Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Rocky Sink #550016I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter J.Heizmann Posted November 8, 2001 Share Posted November 8, 2001 Peter J. Heizmann 383299<BR>Sharon L. Heizmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randjflo60 Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Ronald Flory 284392 J<BR>Judith Flory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ccar Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 60 members of the Brandywine Region being forwareded under separate cover <P>Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Bollman Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 James Bollman - 091218<BR>Patricia Bollman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Thanks everyone who has signed up so far <P>REMEMBER, If you signed a petition last year it no longer is valid. That effort went down to defeat in February and petitions DO NOT carry over.<P>SO PLEASE, SIGN UP AGAIN IF THIS APPLIES TO YOU.<P>Howard<p>[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: hvs ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Ted Schneider<BR>773848 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Julian P. Griffin 340985J<BR>Becky B. Griffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1937hd45 Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Howard, What is the REASON for this change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted sweet Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Is it because of lact of ballots returned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ply33 Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Tod Fitch 281304 I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 '37 ~ Go to the thread entitled "Just Wondering", 3rd post, for a fairly detailed explanation. It was last entered on 11-05-2001 @ 11:04 PM. If I were good at this computer thing, I could bring that post over here, but I'm not.<P>Basically it is to eliminate being forced to vote for someone you don't want to vote for merely to make a ballot valid. <P>teddy ~ Those of us supporting this change believe it will increase the number of ballots cast. However, that was not the main focus of the drive. Not being forced to vote for 7 was.<P>Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 <B>THANK YOU DAN!</B> <P>Now how about coming over here and showing me how you do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2001 Share Posted November 9, 2001 Just to put a different slant on this: <P>Considering that a majority of the candidates every year are incumbents, it serves them to vote this petition down. Incumbents are normally voted back in, <BR>not so much because they earned the position but because we've got to vote for 7 whether we like them or not. The incumbents benefit from this voting model.<P>Quality incumbents have nothing to fear if this petition were to go through. They will get voted in because they earned it. However, incumbents who don?t carry their weight will not automatically get back in? that?s a good thing.<P>Course, that?s just my opinion ? I could be wrong<sup>1</sup>.<P>Peter<P><sup>1</sup> Copyright © 2001, HVS, All rights reserved. <p>[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: peterg ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ccar Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Peter, Good points made!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbarn Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Ron Barnett 053310<BR>Sally Barnett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Binger Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Howard is what you wanted to do?<P><BR>hvs <BR>Senior Member <BR>Member # 2215 <BR> posted 11-05-2001 07:48 PM <BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Before anyone misunderstands my motives for instituting the petition drive to change the "Vote for 7, no more no fewer" ballot requirement, let me make my reasons perfectly clear.<BR>I do not like being forced to vote for someone I do not feel is qualified or a good candidate solely because I need to fill in 7 names on my ballot in order to have it count. Now please don't tell my to read the biographical sketches and decide from that. The candidates write their own bios. Who is going to say that they will do their best but "tend to be lazy and put off duties", or something like that.<P>When you must vote for 7 of nine as on this year's ballot, some of us are going to vote for someone we don't want. Now if we could vote for at least 5 but not more than 7, as our petition states, then at least we could vote with a clear conscience. <P>The person we do not want to vote for may very well be elected, but we will know that our vote was not the one that put that person over the top. I can acccept the will of the majority, but I cannot accept being forced to cast my vote with that majority.<P>hvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Lay Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Rick Lay 509714<BR>Dawne Lay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Binger Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Dan Binger<BR>Judy Binger<BR>080168L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmj Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Charles F. Martin 558451 J<BR>Grace Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Moskowitz Posted November 10, 2001 Share Posted November 10, 2001 Steve Moskowitz 621670 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2001 Share Posted November 11, 2001 HVS It has been a few days since I last checked this site - thanks for the petition info! IF we signed a written petition at club meeting in last couple months, should we sign again here ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2001 Share Posted November 11, 2001 Annie ~ If you are sure your Region's petitions will be sent back, don't sign. If you are unsure, prod the Region person with the petitions, because you are not the only one on there --I hope.<P>Howard<P>Folks --- Don't double up and sign in 2 places. This is not Chicago or Boston. You only get to vote once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordee9r (Ron Springstead) Posted November 11, 2001 Share Posted November 11, 2001 Atta boy Howard!!! <P>Ronald L. Springstead 833773J<BR>Pamela L. Springstead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2001 Share Posted November 13, 2001 I guess maybe this needs to come back to the top before it gets lost and forgotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 14, 2001 Share Posted November 14, 2001 Scott Wolfgang 662211<BR>Elaine Wolfgang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John W. Harvey Posted November 14, 2001 Share Posted November 14, 2001 John W. Harvey #373170<BR>Cindy J. Harvey #373170 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 19, 2001 Share Posted November 19, 2001 Any more interest before I print this out and add it to the written petitions already coming in? <P>Howard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 21, 2001 Share Posted November 21, 2001 Debbie Broomfield - L 780374 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 18DodgeBrothers Posted November 23, 2001 Share Posted November 23, 2001 Lester O. Hoffmann Jr. 100237 J<BR>Betty Hoffmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2001 Share Posted November 28, 2001 Howard V. Scotland, III 780374L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAW Posted November 29, 2001 Share Posted November 29, 2001 Jeffrey A. Walton 921488 L J<BR>Stephanie R. Walton <p>[ 11-28-2001: Message edited by: JAW ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now