02-01-2015, 04:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Amrita
I just got the letter and have read it and the points put forward by the current board. I read the petition. I have decided to send it back voting against ousting the board thinking it was generated by an indignant trouble maker agitators. This fight is all deceptive and troubling and sad but I am taking the board at its word. Yes it's problematic that this goes back to a board member rather than an independent agent but it does require my signature and so it has a verification component.
There are many ways to invalidate a vote. Losing a large number of votes in favor of ouster is the tactic that springs easily to mind. No need to worry about a signature, just blame the mails and quietly declare the ouster position to be defeated. You are far too trusting, if you believe that the threatened director will stand upon the edifice of Principle and not dare thwart the will of his constituents. It is highly irregular to receive the ballots at the home of one of the directors. Even if the vote had nothing to do with ouster, each director has a position on every vote, and if tempted by proximity, could easily nudge the results of any question in his or her favor. It is wrong to conduct official business in that way. When Yen Chin served on the board, he took great pains to receive the results of all voting at a neutral site, and have a neutral party conduct the actual count. That is the only acceptable way to conduct Orchidland business, and the fact that this current board does not appreciate the sensitivity of this issue lends credence to the petition of the "trouble makers" as you so generously labelled them, that these directors abuse their privilege and ought to be recalled.