THE ELIZABETH VOTING PROCESS

As both a member of the Nominating Committee and as a Judge/Counter of votes, I had the opportunity to view the voting procedures from the “inside” over the past several weeks.

In those capacities I recognized opportunities to strengthen the procedures and give more certainty to the legitimacy of the voting process and the outcome.

First, it is important that the Nominating Committee responsibility be expanded beyond the token task of recruiting candidates. The Nominating Committee should be given authority and time to authenticate the credentials and the claims of candidates. In today’s Internet world, information is readily available. Furthermore, we currently offer candidates an open forum to broadcast claims and charges via the distribution of biographies and placement on the display board in the lobby. This channel must be censored for TRUTH.

It is my suggestion that any discrepancies unearthed by the Nominating Committee and concurred upon by a majority of the Committee, be brought to the attention of the offending candidate. That candidate would then have the opportunity to amend his/her bio before publication. Should the candidate choose NOT to do so, it would be the duty of the Nominating Committee to author a document addressing the offending issue(s) and include it in the voting packet and post it as well on the display board in the lobby. Said statement would also be published on the Elizabeth blog.

Additionally, any electioneering materials addressed to residents and distributed to apartment boxes must pass the same tests. Distribution of campaign materials by means of hand delivery under doors should be disallowed and considered an invasion of personal privacy.

The handling of proxy votes is, to say the least, a very vulnerable area for error, unintended or not.

Currently the proxy form is included within each owner’s voting packet. Resident owners receive these packets via the their apartment boxes. Owners choosing to vote by proxy have no prescribed procedure for returning the voted proxy other than to give it to the assigned proxy holder. Or it can be handed to the receptionist in a sealed or unsealed envelope, folded or unfolded, mailed to the Elizabeth or given to the building manage, assistant manager or bookkeeper.

Non-resident owners may do the same but usually mail it to the Elizabeth where it is then held for the proxy assignee who then transposes the vote to the ballot on voting night.

Arcade owners presumably are mailed their voting packets. There is no clarity on this procedure. At least one Arcade owner stated that he was handed his proxy by a candidate.

The proxy process begs for rigid, definitive, overseen structure. Sans such Board legislation, the legitimacy of future vote outcomes will continue to bear the stigma of doubt.

The raucous, unwieldy, last minute harangue of receiving and recording proxy votes at 7:30pm on voting night without any authentification is an exercise in bedlam and seriously damages the integrity of the process. A new method designed to protect the surety of each proxy vote is imperative.

The process of transferring proxy votes to ballots is hectic and absolutely invites opportunities for errors and veiled discrepancies. To do this correctly and without undo pressure, proxies should be counted prior to election night and held under lock and key until election night. It would be the responsibility of the Judges to see that proxies are distributed to assignees and returned in time for counting. A fax copy of each proxy would be made and retained by the Judges and compared with the returned copy to be certain they comply with the owner’s direction.
Should there be a discrepancy, the Judges would have the time to verify
the change or otherwise. If it could not be confirmed, the original proxy vote of the owner would be counted. Each proxy would require the initials of at least two judges. Keep in mind that by this method there is no need to transfer votes to ballots, voting is recorded directly from the proxy and the proxy itself is retained for record. In those cases where the proxy owner invests the proxy holder with his/her voting discretion, that proxy would be counted and the blank fax copy attached.

It seems to me that the ballot counting process offers opportunity for error. It is done at the end of the night; under extreme time pressure and the only control is moderate spot checking. I suggest that the three counters CHANGE computer recorders and do a full recount of each other’s ballots and proxies.

Finally, I have concern about the integrity of Arcade owner voting. NO CANDIDATE should have access to these proxies unless the proxy owner designates the candidate as his/her proxy holder. To insure that such an infraction does not occur, all Arcade and non-resident owner voting packets should be sent via Registered Mail with return receipt requested.

Likely there are better methods for instilling a higher measure of confidence in the integrity of our voting process. That said, I think the well being of the Elizabeth Association and the value of our individual property investment demands that an up dated, more transparent and accurately audited procedure be deployed.

It may be more tedious and time consuming, but the confidence of the owners in the veracity of this current process is seriously in doubt. I think it behooves the Board to form a committee to pursue that objective…not into infinity.

G.M. Feldman, 1819