Cable TV ballot in the mail...who lied?

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Luke

The law is the law, but the law also allows for equitable principles such as estoppel and unclean hands. It was very clearly made that a no ballot would cancel a proxy. Litigation or no, I think it would be foolish to raise that issue in court. Innocent members like Moon relied upon that representation. Had they know that would not in the end have been the procedure to cancel the proxy they may have acted differently.

Fight all you want over the blank ballots if it comes to that. That is fair game, but even though I am in favor of FOC, you will lose my support, and I suspect many more in the community if the extreme position that the no ballot does not cancel the proxy after the fact position is taken.

All I want is a fair election. It would be unfair to punish those who changed their mind and voted no to seek to disregard that vote now.

Here's my cards, straight up. I tend to agree. But I'm hedging and reserving rights not knowing how this is going to play out. I'm also quite confident that there aren't enough no ballots in that pile to make the difference. And remember that every new yes ballot from a non-proxy signer replaces a revoked yes proxy. i will bet there are a lot of yes votes in that pile.

Let me put it this way. What unnerves me is the resistance to giving us any specifics of whether a particular proxy is bounced by a cast vote or a blank ballot and resistance to letting us verify how many of those bumped proxies are marked ballots vs. blank pieces of paper. I can't agree to go along with that b.s.

But if provided verifiable information from which it could be ascertained that (1) FOC lost based on CAST NO ballots knocking out proxies, and that (2) illegal exclusions due to illegal counting of blank ballots or illegal voter disqualifications AFTER the record date did not affect the outcome, once satisfied we lost fair and square under those terms the only honorable thing to do is take our lumps and acknowledge the outcome.

But if it is numerically possible that either of those illegalities could have made the difference, there is no concession. And if the Inspector insists on denying us the information on which we could reliably determine that numeric possibility, there is no concession. Which is why I can't stipulate to anything until I know what information will be made available and whether it is numerically possible that any of this made the difference.

This may well be a tempest in a teapot numerically. It may still pass by a landslide.

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

Here's my cards, straight up. I tend to agree. But I'm hedging and reserving rights not knowing how this is going to play out. I'm also quite confident that there aren't enough no ballots in that pile to make the difference. And remember that every new yes ballot from a non-proxy signer replaces a revoked yes proxy. i will bet there are a lot of yes votes in that pile.

Let me put it this way. What unnerves me is the resistance to giving us any specifics of whether a particular proxy is bounced by a cast vote or a blank ballot and resistance to letting us verify how many of those bumped proxies are marked ballots vs. blank pieces of paper. I can't agree to go along with that b.s.

But if provided verifiable information from which it could be ascertained that (1) FOC lost based on CAST NO ballots knocking out proxies, and that (2) illegal exclusions due to illegal counting of blank ballots or illegal voter disqualifications AFTER the record date did not affect the outcome, once satisfied we lost fair and square under those terms the only honorable thing to do is take our lumps and acknowledge the outcome.

But if it is numerically possible that either of those illegalities could have made the difference, there is no concession. And if the Inspector insists on denying us the information on which we could reliably determine that numeric possibility, there is no concession. Which is why I can't stipulate to anything until I know what information will be made available and whether it is numerically possible that any of this made the difference.

This may well be a tempest in a teapot numerically. It may still pass by a landslide.

So, you are saying now that you will only stipulate after the outcome is known to you? The votes have already been cast!

[Wilbur]

Moon, please read my response to Luke and reconsider. All I'm doing right now is avoiding making any concessions that could unexpectedly bite us some unforeseen way in a courtroom. if we should lose fair and square including counting your no and every other no as a no cancelling a proxy, we lost the election and are not going to pull any lawyerly b.s. That is the other side's specialty.

My credibility means more to me than this election. Trust me on that.

[Zebra Top]

Originally Posted by Wilbur

My credibility means more to me than this election. Trust me on that.

I hope we are all keeping in perspective what we are discussing. In the greater scheme of things, it is only cable tv, after all.

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Zebra Top

So, you are saying now that you will only stipulate after the outcome is known to you? The votes have already been cast!

What we're disputing is an illegal definition of vote as including an unmarked piece of paper. There is no serious intention to challenge a marked ballot. Just a lame effort to preserve a legal position which the more I think about it wasn't worth even mentioning because it's almost certainly not going to matter.

Again, I stipulate to deciding this election on the basis of how people marked their proxies and their ballots, yielding to MARKED ballots, provided it can be demonstrated that RMA's illegal hijinks regarding counting unmarked ballots and illegally disqualifying voters after the record date without following the CC&Rs, Bylaws and Election Rules and the Code regarding the due process required before you can suspend voting rights and requiring that the suspension is in effect, as the Bylaws state, "as of the record date." Which was October 6 and they didn't start processing a suspension list until November.

If established that we lost fair and square, including honoring all CAST votes, we lost fair and square. Like Luke, all I have wanted, and asked for again and again, is a nice clean vote under which all would be satisfied that the numbers were right and none would have any reason to question the numbers themselves.

But RMA is playing games and violating laws, and if the impact of that lawbreaking cannot be quantified to determine whether it could have made a difference, it is impossible to determine whether we lost fair and square and so there is no concession. If a judge were to determine that we lost fair and square if you counted the explicit NO ballots as cancelling proxies I readily agree that I would, as Luke more gently suggests, be a first class sphincter if i didn't agree that was a "fair and square" loss. But since RMA seems determined to force this into the courts by playing illegal vote suppression games and refusing to provide the information from which the impact of their illegalities can be quantified, I'm being careful (not as careful as I should be) about what is being conceded. If I had a lawyer he would have ripped my keyboard away some time ago and told me to just shut up and not say anything, but I am trying to help people understand what is going on.

I have no intention of challenging any marked ballot. OK?

[Wilbur]

Originally Posted by Zebra Top

I hope we are all keeping in perspective what we discussing. In the greater scheme of things, it is only cable tv, after all.

The cavalier disregard for members' rights and the governing documents and laws gives me far more heartburn than being forced to pay for TV. That baloney has to stop, not just with respect to this election but with regard to the way RMA does business generally. Members have rights and they are to be respected.

[Luke]

Like I said, I believe this is all a tempest in a teapot which will blow over next week - at least the voting part.

[MoonMan]

maybe my emotions got the better of me earlier, and I know Wilbur to be an upfront type of guy, so my exasperation/frustration below isn't an indication of my feelings about Wilbur in general.

thanks for the clarification...it's a lot to think about.

[feistylady]

Luke, I totally disagree with you about this being forgotten next week. Certainly there are three guys like the wise men, called Wilbur, George and John, who believe so strongly that they are right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, they will fight to their last breath to continue to be right even if the ship goes down with them on it. This will be my last comments on this subject and I will watch the chips fall where they may.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by feistylady

Luke, I totally disagree with you about this being forgotten next week. Certainly there are three guys like the wise men, called Wilbur, George and John, who believe so strongly that they are right and everyone who doesn't agree with them is wrong, they will fight to their last breath to continue to be right even if the ship goes down with them on it. This will be my last comments on this subject and I will watch the chips fall where they may.

I was only referring to the vote. I believe the vote will be in favor of FOC next week, non-marked ballots, no ballots, hanging chads, whatever.

However, implementation I have a feeling will be a whole different ballgame.