Counting Conundrum

Started by Brad Everett, July 16, 2011, 11:40:57 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brad Everett

Just when it seemed like the vote on the Sexuality Statement couldn't get any stranger...
The Committee on Elections (an appointed committee of the convention) has the discretion to appoint whomever it wishes to count ballots for any given vote. The committee made use of that discretion and in consultation with Bp. Johnson, asked others, including one of National Bishop's assistants, to handle the task when it came time to count the ballots on the Human Sexuality Statement vote, instead of the usual volunteers.
When asked about this, the chair of the Committee on Elections said the committee is charged with handling the elections and can choose to make use of the volunteers as it sees fit. The Bp. wanted the results quickly and it was a simple yes/no vote, so they went this route and may do so again if the situation warrants it.
When I asked Bp. Johnson about this (as there was a rumour she had made the change) she said that it is up to the Committee on Elections to decide who counts the ballots and when they told her of their decision she declined to interfere.
Talking to a couple of the usual ballot counters (part of the group of volunteers that have been counting the votes for all the written ballots these last two days) it seems after the vote, they were waiting in their regular room to begin their work when the ballots ended up being counted elsewhere by others.
Then, shortly after the results were announced, a motion was made to have the ballots destroyed.
I'm sure there are any number of ways this could have been handled worse, but I don't want to think about it.  Of course, no rules were broken and the rationale the chair of the Committee on Elections gave is understandable—but knowing emotions and tensions around this vote were incredibly high, was it worth breaking precedent and having different counters in a different room? Further, why have the ballots destroyed, especially since there was no motion to do so after any of the other written ballots (e.g. three ballots for bishop, various ballots for National Church Council and committees etc.)? Typically the motion to destroy written ballots is one of the last ones made at our conventions.
Trust and goodwill are already at a premium and many delegates are being worked overtime regarding the 8th commandment. It makes no sense to do something like this that only exacerbates an already pressure packed situation.



Not good....not good at all...


I spoke with one of the ballot counters.  Apparently, one of the ballot counters for the vote on the social statement was in fact a rostered delegate who, knowing this person personally, could not by any stretch of the imagination be described as impartial

Nonetheless, I suspect that the vote count is more or less accurate.

Dr. Daniel Glaeske


Quote from: GlaeskeMD on July 16, 2011, 01:44:06 PM

Nonetheless, I suspect that the vote count is more or less accurate.

Dr. Daniel Glaeske

Neither of which would be accurate

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk