December 15, 2006
ELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
2006 STATEWIDE ELECTIONS
The Committee
The Committee was composed of the following members of CUE:
| Mary Efferen | UCSF |
| Linda Moser | UCD |
| Aaron Dailey | UCD |
| Rebecca Anshel | UCSD |
| Kathi Young | UCOP |
| Anytra Henderson | LBNL |
| CJ Willie | UCB |
Mary Efferen was the principal planner at the start of the election. We
had one phone call in which Mary, Aaron and Linda Moser discussed the
timeline and the initial planning to announce the beginning of the
election, initial e-mails, etc. Mary revised the election timeline
after the discussion and presented it for posting on the Statewide website.
Unfortunately, Mary was unable to continue as a member of the Committee
due her retirement.
Revisions of the Election Timeline
The original timeline for all aspects of the election was revised
several times. Delays occurred for a variety of reasons. The most significant
issue that arose was the complaint of various CUE members that at the
end of the initial period for nominations, there were few contested
positions and no candidates for at least three of the offices. After discussion,
the Committee reopened the nomination period with an additional e-mail to
the membership asking for nominations for all positions. The extension
produced significantly more nominations and additional acceptances so
that we had a complete slate of candidates and only two uncontested positions
remained (Secretary and Chief Steward).
An additional delay occurred due to a question about the eligibility of
one candidate for President. The Committee requested legal advice to
determine if the candidate was eligible to run for office. The Committee
felt there were possible circumstances re the layoff and subsequent
relocation that would make the nominee ineligible to stand as a
candidate. The Statewide attorney, Ari Krantz, advised that the only relevant
question was, "Is the nominee currently a member." He determined based
on this question alone, that the nominee was a member. The Committee
then notified the candidate he was eligible and placed his name on the slate.
Subsequently, members of CUE filed a protest to the same nominees
eligibility. Additional information and/or persuasive arguments were
presented to the Election Committee. The Committee felt that the
additional arguments were convincing and that the nominee was not
eligible. The Election Committee presented their findings to the
Statewide Executive Board. The Board heard the arguments and again
requested a legal opinion. Both Ari Krantz and Margot Rosenberg advised
that the additional arguments and information were not convincing and
that the issue remained membership of the candidate according to the
Constitution. They concluded once again that the nominee was indeed a
member and eligible to run. The timeline for the election was revised
accordingly.
The timeline as revised was followed successfully for the remainder of
the election process. There are suggestions/recommendations at the end of
the report that will hopefully expedite the elections of the future and
allow adherence to the timeline originally established by any Election
Committee.
Standard Ballot Count Process
The first ballot count was conducted as described below. Please note
that all counts mentioned in this explanation are recorded online and
produced in a paper printout.
All ballots received are placed in a locked trunk(s) in the state
office. The trunk(s) are not opened until the day of the official ballot count,
and are only opened in the presence of two or more CUE members.
The total number of ballots removed from the trunk(s) is recorded. The
count is done at least two times to avoid any possibility of mistakes.
All ballot envelopes are removed from the outside mailing envelope. The
outside envelopes are batched and kept for referral. All ballots are
reviewed to ensure that the tear off flap on the ballot envelope has
been filled out with printed name and a signature. Any ballot envelope
without a completed tear off flap is excluded and the count is recorded.
The tear off flaps are removed from each ballot envelope. The counters
ensure that the counts still balance when compared with the original
count of the ballots. Each flap is compared with the list of members and the
membership list is notated that the member voted. Any discrepancies are
set aside for review at the end of the count. The remaining flaps are
batched, counted and set aside.
Ballot envelopes are opened and ballots are removed. Ballots are tallied
by Office. For instance all ballots are sorted for President by
candidate. Ballots are then counted for each Presidential candidate. There are two
additional counts by different people of these ballots. The count is
recorded and the numbers checked to ensure that the totals are the same
as the original number, minus any exclusions. This process is carried out
for each office.
At the end of the count, all ballots, tear off flaps, envelopes, count
records and final count sheet are placed in a container and sealed. The
box or bag is then signed on top by at least two members from the
Election Committee. These containers are placed in storage for a minimum of one
year.
Special Circumstances of the Second Ballot Count
As has been reported to the Statewide Executive Board previously, there
was a staffing problem at the Berkeley post office that resulted in the
delay of USPS delivery of ballots to the Statewide Office .
The Election Committee consulted with the Statewide attorney, Margot
Rosenberg, to determine the proper procedure to follow under these
unusual circumstances.
Following Ms Rosenberg's advice and discussion among the Committee, it
was decided that the additional ballots would be counted. The ballots were
sorted as follows:
All ballots with a postmark of Oct. 11 were counted.
All ballots with a postmark after Oct. 11 were set aside and were not
counted All ballots with no postmark were set aside and were not counted.
The deadline for ballots to be valid was October 12. This was the date
by which they had to be received in the office and not the postmark date.
To accept Oct. 12 as the cutoff date would have meant a post facto change
in the election rules - valid ballots being determined by postmark rather
than by date received. There is no doubt that some additional members
would have returned ballots had the postmark been used as the cutoff.
October 11 was chosen as the cutoff date because it was at least possible
that a ballot postmarked Oct. 11 could have been received in the office
by Oct. 12.
The remainder of the count was conducted as per a regular ballot count
procedure. Attached to this report are the various statistics compiled by Craig
Alderson as well as the documentation from the attorney.
Because of the impending election appeal, Craig Alderson and Kathi Young
have subsequently compiled a list of the names on all election material
envelopes returned for no correct address. It may well be an additional
process that we would want to add to all future election procedures.
Please note that the issue of materials returned for invalid addresses
was noted by the Election Committee. The need to send change of address to
CUE when a member moves was included. As was reported by Linda Moser to the
Election Appeals group, the Statewide Office staff work on updating
address lists constantly as does any business. Every effort is made to
contact both members and nonmembers to obtain a current valid address.
With over 15,000 jurisdiction members, it is not possible to always have
every home address updated and the Election Committee did not see that
as part of the election process. Until this election, there has never been
any Board concern over mail returned to CUE due to invalid addresses.
However, office staff have been working on address updates as a regular
part of their duties since the very beginning of CUE.
Cost of Current Election
| Printing (statements, ballots, envelopes) | $6352 |
| Postage out (9/27 mailing) | 2546 |
| Postage out (10/1 supplemental mailing) | 57 |
| Business reply postage (est.) | 442 |
| Total | $9397 |
These costs are rounded up to the nearest whole dollar. The membership
numbers for printing purposes were around 5,000, but the actual numbers
are lower.
Suggestions for Future Elections
The Statewide Election has become a burdensome job for anyone volunteering
to participate. It is recommended that the Union investigate the
possibility of hiring an outside organization that specifically handles
union elections. The Board should debate the pros and cons and/or try this
process for one election. It is suggested that the Election Committee work
with or coordinate with the outside organization to ensure the timely
completion of the election.
If the union decides not to use an outside organization we suggest the
following:
1) The committee be formed no later than mid January of the year
elections will be held.
2) The Chair of the committee should meet with Statewide office staff
to work on a preliminary timeline and realistically look at the process
and make accommodation for any unanticipated event. The Chair should meet
with both the printing company and mailing house to fully understand the
process necessary to make things run smoothly and the mailing be timely.
3) The entire Committee should meet in person with the Chair and
Statewide office staff. It is very difficult to be inclusive and have
full participation when committee members do not meet. An in person
meeting could possibly ensure more buy-in by each member
4) Craig Alderson and Linda Moser should be given the task of
producing an election manual that meets the requirements of the State
Constitution, best practices and clearly incorporates all the
responsibilities and tasks currently carried out by Craig Alderson.
Craig is not only CUE Staff but is a CUE member. It is unlikely that future
staff will have that dual role. At that point either a member must
undertake these tasks or the union will need to decide if these are
staff responsibilities.
5) Perhaps the most significant recommendation is that the balloting
period should be extended significantly in all subsequent elections. An
extended period would allow time so returned ballots can be remailed and
members would have additional time to request duplicate ballots. During
this election, the need to revise timelines and still get the election
completed within certain parameters, did not allow enough time for members
to realize they had not received a ballot and to investigate why this
occurred. This one timeline has to be extended to account for mail
transit times.
Attachments: