Summary:
Our objection is that over half the verbiage of the population-sprawl ballot question was simply dropped from the ballot. The wording that nearly 2000 petitioners signed was arbitrarily changed when the ballot was printed. The Election Inspectors ruled that this arbitraty deletion was not a violation of election rules; that the Club can make just about any change it wants to petition ballot questions, and that "Nowhere in the Bylaws or Standing Rules does it state that the wording of the ballot question must be identical to the wording of the petition language."
March 17, 2001
To: Sierra Club Election Inspectors:
Marvin Baker
Barbara Postles
cp:
Gene Coan
Charlie Ogle
Carl Pope
The population-sprawl ballot question that was qualified by the Secretary is as follows:
"WHEREAS the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority campaign; and
WHEREAS population growth is an important driving force of sprawl development in most areas; and
WHEREAS stabilizing the U.S. population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs."
However, the printed ballot information sheet mailed with the ballots (in March of 2001) shows only the following as the ballot question.
"The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs?"
In addition, Club newsletters appear to be printing only the truncated version of the ballot question. For example, see
Sierra Sentry - Northeast Florida, at http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/fl/northeast/sa0103c.html . This implies that the ballot question wording as distributed to newsletter editors in the early January 2001 timeframe was similarly truncated.
Nowhere in the bylaws and standing rules, to the best of our knowledge, does it state that the ballot question can be altered after it is accepted and prepared by the Secretary.
The "whereas" clauses of the population-sprawl ballot question are an integral part of the ballot question. They are key to correct interpretation of the context of the ballot question (which is why we must presume they were dropped). Without these components, the true meaning of the ballot question is subverted, making it impossible for voters to understand the full context of the ballot question and making it impossible for a fair vote to be achieved.
We therefore request that the Inspectors rule for an immediate follow-up mailing to all voting club members restating the ballot question in full and reissuing new ballots, and an extension of the ballot due date by 7 1/2 weeks from the time of mailing. We request simultaneous correction of all Club and elections web pages that contain the ballot question, and that a corrections statement simultaneously be issued to all newsletter editors.
We also request the Inspectors to rule for other applicable remedies, to be determined by the Inspectors.
==================================
Applicable bylaws/standing rules.
SR. 11-1-1: Petitions on Ballot Issues
- This section describes the petitioning process in detail
(not included in full here).
SR. 11-3-1: Structure of the Ballot and Ballot Materials: The
Secretary shall prepare the ballot and accompanying materials relating
to ballot questions in a manner that clearly presents the question or
questions posed and, if changes or amendments to existing policy or
procedures are proposed, the current provision(s), or a summary
thereof, shall also be stated for comparison. If more than one
alternative to existing policy is proposed, members shall be given a
choice among them and a "none-of-the-above" option. The ballot shall
state that this option would preserve existing policy. Any ballot
issue must receive a majority of the votes cast to prevail, provided
that a quorum votes on the issue.
==================================
Sincerely,
Fred Elbel, SUSPS
Ed Glaze III, population-sprawl ballot coordinator
R U L I N G :
From: "MarvinBaker"
Subject: RULING (2001-8) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, CONCERNING THE WORDING OF THE SPRAWL/POPULATION QUESTION ON THE BALLOT
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001
Dear Fred and Ed:
Below is the ruling of the Inspectors on your complaint concerning the wording of the sprawl/population question as it appears on the ballot.
Should you have any questions regarding this ruling, please contact the Inspectors.
Best wishes,
Marvin
RULING (2001-8) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, CONCERNING THE WORDING OF THE SPRAWL/POPULATION QUESTION ON THE BALLOT
On 17 March 2001, Mr. Fred Elbel, writing on behalf of himself and Mr. Ed Glaze, III, the "pro" Sprawl/Population Coordinator, sent to the Inspectors of Election a complaint. The focus of this complaint is the wording of the sprawl/population question on the ballot. The Sierra Club Board of Directors adopted this wording at its November 2000 meeting.
In his complaint, Mr. Elbel states:
"The population-sprawl ballot question that was qualified by the Secretary is as follows:
"WHEREAS the Sierra Club has made reducing sprawl a national priority campaign; and WHEREAS population growth is an important driving force of Sprawl development in most areas; and WHEREAS stabilizing the U.S. population has been Sierra Club policy since 1969; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Sierra Club shall emphasize both Regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs.
"However, the printed ballot information sheet mailed with the ballots (in March of 2001) shows only the following as the ballot question.
"The Sierra Club shall emphasize both regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs?"
Mr. Elbel continues:
"Nowhere in the bylaws and standing rules, to the best of our knowledge, does it state that the ballot question can be altered after it is accepted and prepared by the Secretary."
Mr. Elbel continues by specifying the remedy he and Mr. Glaze seek:
"We therefore request that the Inspectors rule for an immediate follow-up mailing to all voting club members restating the ballot question in full and reissuing new ballots, and an extension of the ballot due date by 7 1/2 weeks from the time; of mailing. We request simultaneous correction of all Club and elections web pages than contain the ballot question, and that a corrections statement simultaneously be issued to all newsletter editors.
"We also request the Inspectors to rule for other applicable remedies, to be determined by the Inspectors."
The complaint is a request for the Inspectors to rule on a specific question:
May the question on the ballot be altered from the version that was certified by the Secretary for the petition?
Contrary to the view of Mr. Elbel, the Inspectors find that the provisions of Standing Rule 11-1-1, Petitions on Ballot Issues, which he references in his complaint, do not apply in this matter. This Standing Rule applies to the wording on the petition, not the wording on the ballot.
Mr. Elbel includes a citation of Standing Rule 11-3-1, Structure of the Ballot and Ballot Materials, but does not direct our attention to any specific wording that may have been grounds for the complaint. The Inspectors can find no provision of this Standing Rule that was violated.
The Inspectors are guided in our ruling by the provisions of Bylaw 11.1, Ballots of the Club. This Bylaw reads:
"11.1. Whenever the Board of Directors or the President shall decide that any question is of such importance that it should be submitted to a vote of the membership of the Club, or whenever such a vote is required by law or these Bylaws, the Board shall certify to the Secretary the form in which such question shall be submitted to the membership. [5510,5513]
The Inspectors reviewed the published minutes of the November 2000 Board Meeting, in an effort to determine if the Board did certify to the Secretary the form in which the question was to be submitted to the membership. The minutes read:
"MSC(McGrady-Perrault) The Board of Directors recognizes that a number of members equal to at least 2% of the number of ballots cast in the Club's last election have requested, in writing, that the question "[Shall] the Sierra Club emphasize both regional and national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs" be put to a vote of the Club's membership.
"The Board recognizes that this question is of such importance that it should be submitted to the membership. The Board, as required by Bylaws 11.2, and as allowed by Bylaw 11.1, certifies this question to the Secretary for a vote of the Club's members during the 2001 Election."
The Inspectors also reviewed the provisions of Bylaw 11.2,Ballots of the Club. This Bylaw reads:
"11.2. Except as provided in Bylaw 5.10, whenever a number of members of the Club equal at least to two percent (2%) of the number of ballots cast at the immediately preceding annual election for Directors shall request in writing that a resolution be adopted by the Club, the Board may adopt the resolution by majority vote, unless the petition specifically requests a vote of the membership or such a vote is required by law or these Bylaws; if the resolution is not so adopted, the Board shall certify it to the Secretary for a vote of the members. The Board shall specify the procedure for the initiation and circulation of such petitions, including approval of the wording to assure that it is properly framed.
The Inspectors also reviewed the provisions of Bylaw 11.3,Ballots of the Club. This Bylaw reads:
"11.3 The Secretary shall have the question or questions, certified according to Paragraph 11.1 or 11.2 above, printed for mailing at the next annual balloting of members for the election of Directors or at such special vote of the members as the Board or President shall request. A written petition submitting a resolution must be delivered to the principal office of the Club by the date set by the Board of Directors in order for it to be qualified for presentation on the annual ballot. The ballot shall be printed so as to enable the members to express approval or disapproval of each resolution. The mailing of the ballot and the counting of the votes shall be conducted in the same manner as for the election of Directors (Bylaw 5, Section 2). The ballot shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth arguments for and against the question and stating the number of approvals necessary to pass the measure submitted [5513]
Nowhere in the Bylaws or Standing Rules does it state that the wording of the ballot question must be identical to the wording of the petition language.
Our ruling is that Bylaw 11.1 made it mandatory for the Board of Directors to certify to the Secretary the form in which a ballot question is to be submitted to the membership. The Board clearly did certify to the Secretary, verbatim, the form of the ballot question. That form complies with the requirements set forth in Bylaw 11.3, that the ballot "shall be printed so as to enable the members to express approval or disapproval of each resolution". Therefore there is no violation of the election rules.
We further rule that the distribution of the wording of the ballot question certified by the Board of Directors and subsequent publication of that wording by Sierra Club newsletters, is not a violation of any Standing Rule or Bylaw.
Having ruled that the form of the ballot question is not in violation of the election rules there is no remedy required.
Marvin Baker,
Chief Inspector of Election, For the Inspectors
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION:
To: Elections Inspectors
March 23, 2001
We believe that the Club (and therefore the ruling) is using an inconsistency or ambiguity in the way By-laws 11.2 and 11.3 are written to justify it position. Bylaw 11.2 clearly states that if a resolution is not adopted by the Board, then it must be certified for a vote. Bylaw 11.3 refers to the club Secretary certifying the question for the ballot.
The ambiguity is whether this is simply sloppy language ("resolution" in one instance; "question" in the other), or if the bylaws actually intend only for the "Be it resolved" portion of a resolution, not also its "whereas" section, be submitted to a vote.
We don't think anyone has suggested that the Club can insert words that were not actually part of the original resolution into the question (without agreement by both sides). What is unclear is whether the Bylaws mandate the full resolution be submitted to the membership or only the "operative" part, the "Be it resolved" section.
We would argue that the spirit of democracy implies that the totality of the resolution be voted on, but the Bylaws are not specific on this point thus giving the Club sufficient latitude to do what it wants, namely, ask the question in the way most favorable to its position.
We therefore ask that the inspectors revisit this ruling specifically with respect to addressing this ambiguity in the Bylaws. Specifically,
a) Does sloppy language in the Blyaws create a loophole that allows the Club to ask the a ballot question in a manner most favorable to its position - e.g., without the full "Whereas" components?
b) Is the intent of the bylaws to allow the Club to ask the a ballot question in a manner most favorable to its position - e.g., without the full "Whereas" components?
c) If so, does this mean that the Club can insert and change wording, as well as delete portions of qualified ballot questions?
Sincerely,
Fred Elbel, SUSPS
Ed Glaze III, population-sprawl ballot coordinator
S U B S E Q U E N T R U L I N G :
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001
Dear Fred and Ed:
The Inspectors of Election have, at your request, revisited our earlier ruling 2001-8. Below you will find our unanimous opinion on the matters you raised in your request.
Best wishes,
Marvin
RULING (2001-8.1) ON APPEAL BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, TO REVISIT RULING 2001-8 CONCERNING THE WORDING OF THE SPRAWL/POPULATION QUESTION ON THE BALLOT
On 23 March 2001, Mr. Fred Elbel, writing on behalf of himself and Mr. Ed Glaze, III, the "pro" Sprawl/Population Coordinator, sent to the Inspectors of Election a request to revisit our ruling 2001-8. The focus of this ruling is the wording of the sprawl/population question on the ballot. The Sierra Club Board of Directors adopted this wording at its November 2000 meeting.
In his request, Mr. Elbel states:
"We therefore ask that the inspectors revisit this ruling specifically with respect to addressing this ambiguity in the Bylaws. In other words,
"a) Does sloppy language in the Blyaws [sic] create a loophole that allows the Club to ask the a ballot question in a manner most favorable to its position- e.g., without the full "Whereas" components?
"b) Is the intent of the bylaws to allow the Club to ask the a ballot question in a manner most favorable to its position -e.g., without the full "Whereas" components?
"c) If so, does this mean that the Club can insert and change wording, as well as delete portions of qualified ballot questions?"
Mr. Elbel does not specify the remedy he and Mr. Glaze seek, but it is presumed that the remedies originally requested would be sought if revisiting the ruling disclosed any oversight or misinterpretation.
The request is for the Inspectors to rule on three specific questions:
1. Does sloppy language in the Bylaws create a loophole that allows the Club to ask the ballot question in a manner most favorable to its position-e.g., without the full "Whereas components?
2. Is the intent of the Bylaws to allow the Club to ask the ballot question in a manner most favorable to
its position-e.g., without the full "Whereas" components?
3. If so, does this mean that the Club can insert and change wording, as well as delete portions of qualified ballot questions?
The Inspectors are guided in our ruling by the provisions of Bylaw 11.1, Ballots of the Club.
This Bylaw reads:
"Whenever the Board of Directors or the President shall decide that any question is of such importance that it should be submitted to a vote of the membership of the Club, or whenever such a vote is required by law or these Bylaws, the Board shall certify to the Secretary the form in which such question shall be submitted to the membership. [5510, 5513]"
The operative word here is "Whenever" which is stated at the beginning of Bylaw 11.1. At the time the Board was required to submit this question to the membership it was mandatory that "the Board shall certify to the Secretary the form in which such question shall be submitted to the membership."
In response to question number 1 above: Our ruling 2001-8 speaks for itself. We welcome any suggestions which would clarify Sierra Club Bylaws and Standing Rules related to the election process , and we are actively collecting such suggestions. There are no "loopholes" in Club Bylaws, and we would not characterize the language as "sloppy."
In response to question number 2 above: Our ruling 2001-8 speaks for itself. The Bylaws were cited verbatim, and their intent elaborated upon.
In response to question number 3 above: Our ruling 2001-8 again speaks for itself. The Board of Directors certifies to the Secretary the form of the ballot question.
Nowhere in the Bylaws or Standing Rules does it state that the wording of the ballot question must be identical to the wording of the petition language. Furthermore, it would appear that in this instance the petition language itself violated Standing Rule 11-1-1.1(b) that states that the petition "...shall be restricted to a single subject and may not restate existing policy except to show how the proposed policy differs ...". Even if we accept the supposition that the ballot question must be identical to the petition language (and we do not), in this instance the elimination of the prohibited restatement of existing policy would be an attempt to correct a glaring error.
Our ruling is that Bylaw 11.1 made it mandatory for the Board of Directors to certify to the Secretary the form in which a ballot question is to be submitted to the membership. The Board clearly did certify to the Secretary, verbatim, the form of the ballot question. That form complies with the requirements set forth in Bylaw 11.3, that the ballot "shall be printed so as to enable the members to express approval or disapproval of each resolution". Therefore there is no violation of the election rules.
Having ruled that the form of the ballot question is not in violation of the election rules there is no remedy required.
Marvin Baker,
Chief Inspector of Election, For the Inspectors
|
