If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Oh has answered your proposal to have both candidates serve as co-chairs in a thread started by Mr. Gordon Nadezda.

Lemonodo Oh wrote:Wish to thank you for keen interest, questions, patience, high turnout at the polls and careful choice. We apparently did not find a single Treasurer, which is essential for operating under the Charter in a transparent manner. Considering we must conduct re-vote, we might consider scheduling re-vote in such a way that it doesn't conflict at all with upcoming scheduled events.

Rim, is your proposal to have the vote open for the 24 hours of Saturday, 26 September or Sunday, 27 September? If I'm reading Mr. Oh's comment correctly, in order to avoid any perceived "conflict" with the Art Walk the 24 hours of Saturday, 26 September would be the better choice.
Peace,
Keo

Personally, I want to get my Pride torture regime completed as soon as possible. Why another general election? Because there is no fundamental understanding of representative democracy.

In this particular case, a voting tie meant that the entire body of Second Pride --the membership, the ambassadors, and the elected committee-- could not reach a consensus on Treasurer. In other words, the Second Pride organization showed no preference for either candidate.

In cases of no preference, the vote should move to the elected committee of Second Pride. This is the group that must work with the Treasurer on a consistent, often daily, basis. Without a preference from the organization, the elected committee must have the opportunity to decide which candidate is the better fit with the direction and goals of SP2010. To deny your elected committee this right indicates a basic apprehension of the elected committee, and a misunderstanding of democratic principles.

The fact that Rimpoche himself advocated for another general election shows how badly the SP2010 committee wants to avoid criticism, remain transparent, and win trust. The flaw in this approach is that the Second Pride culture does not seem to be based on trust, but on power and posturing. It does not matter what you do in Second Pride; the real test of endurance is that your public service simply got noted. You sat in a Chair. You got to make some fabulous decisions.

I was expecting this if you read back my posts. Just one question though. You all did get to vote in this and the result would have been different if you had not. So appart from the points you raised about the fact you will be working with that person etc... Which I agree with, it's an obvious fact.
Wouldn't it be like saying you guys have the right to vote twice?

I'm just saying, under the current athmosphere your committee is in, I'm sure everyone would appreciate effort to leave no room for protestations about decisions like this.

Marcus Steeplechase wrote:...In other words, the Second Pride organization showed no preference for either candidate...

Excuse me Marcus but I think you see this wrongly. An equal amount of voters showed a preference for either Lemo as for Eagle. ... I did vote and I DID have a preference.

There are just as many voters happy with one or the other... that is not a matter of showing no preference!

I stand corrected ... Sorry Marcus.
But...

I still think this is becoming a damn popularity contest... nothing to do with the best person for the post.

Last edited by stryker jenkins on Fri Sep 25, 2009 10:02 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : correction pointed out to me by Marcus)

Stryker, I hope we can keep a normal talk level.

I beleive you should have formulated your thoughts differently, Marcus as well as everyone else here wants to make this process smooth in the end, we can agree to disagree on the method. And without making anything personal.

stryker jenkins wrote:

Marcus Steeplechase wrote:...In other words, the Second Pride organization showed no preference for either candidate...

There are just as many voters happy with one or the other... that is not a matter of showing no preference!

Stryker, I am talking about organizational preference, not personal preference. The organization had "no preference" although on an individual level it surely did.

This is about the re-vote of the re-vote. Thank you so much for letting me run. I went from humiliating defeat on Committee vote to tie from all of you, Committee, Ambassador and General Member Registered Voter. Thank you! But the tie creates a problem. You need one Treasurer, not people pointing fingers at each other. Please be patient and vote your conscience one more time. I can't find each of you online, so call me if you can. I'd love to answer your questions in the few hours we have. I am on a lot, and I'm trying to find you! One more time, I want to thank you for coming out and making me a contender! Hooray Pride!