|
Summary:
Our objection is that material enclosed with the ballots says that a "YES" vote on the ballot question will replace existing September, 2000 Board policy. We contend that existing policy will be augmented, not recinded. The Election Inspectors ruled that the ballot wording is not in violation of Bylaws.
March 17, 2001
To: Sierra Club Election Inspectors:
Marvin Baker
Barbara Postles
cp:
Gene Coan
Charlie Ogle
Carl Pope
Objection to Sierra Club Election Inspectors on Ballot Question Policy Change Clause
We are formally objecting to the statement included with the Sprawl/Population ballot question in the printed 2001 ballot material, mailed with the 2001 ballots. Under the statement of the population-sprawl petition question, the following statement appears in bold:
'A "YES" vote is a vote to adopt the petitioned policy as a substitute for the Board-adopted policy.'
We specifically object to this wording. A YES vote is NOT a vote to categorically revoke the Board-adopted policy. A YES vote is ONLY a vote to "emphasize both national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs."
The preamble to the ballot question and full September Board policy resolution is included below. Specifically, a YES vote for the ballot question will not revoke these statements that are part of the September resolution:
-- "The relationship between sprawl and growth is complex. That complexity, including factors identified by local Sierra Club entities, should be fully and meaningfully reflected in materials developed by the sprawl campaign."
This statement most certainly would still apply if the ballot question were to pass.
-- 'Sierra Club founder John Muir said " when we try to pick out anything in the universe we find it is hitched to everything else." Thus, the actions we take on behalf of one campaign have the potential to affect our other campaigns. Ideally this synergy will result in our campaigns reinforcing and supporting each other.'
This statement most certainly would still apply if the ballot question were to pass.
-- "The potential for this synergy is present in our Sprawl and Population campaigns. Clearly, there are many locations where the impacts of sprawl are greatly exacerbated by population growth. But sprawl is a pattern of increasingly inefficient and wasteful land use that is devastating environmental and social conditions, not only in regions where population is growing rapidly, but also in regions where it is not. Some places are consuming land at record rates, and yet have stable or declining populations."
This statement most certainly would apply if the ballot question were to pass.
-- "The Board urges and expects both campaigns to be alert to opportunities for mutually reinforcing messages, campaign materials and efforts."
The above statement most certainly would apply if the ballot question were to pass. Each of the above statements would still apply even if the ballot question were to pass. The above statements comprise the entirety of the September Board resolution. Therefore, the ballot material wording of policy change is clearly incorrect and deliberately misleading. The implication of the policy change statement is that passage of the ballot question would revoke the September Board resolution. This is patently untrue, misleading, and it is an unfair presentation of the ballot question, designed to confuse the voters.
We object to this biased and unfair presentation of the policy change statement, which should have said 'A "YES" vote is a vote to adopt the petitioned policy IN ADDITION TO EXISTING BOARD-adopted policy."
In addition, we object to inclusion of the preamble to the sprawl/population ballot question for reason that since the policy change statement is incorrect, no inclusion of the September Board resolution is necessary as part of the preamble.
We therefore request that the Inspectors rule for an immediate follow-up mailing to all voting club members explaining that this presentation of the ballot question was biased against the ballot question, and reissuing of new ballots, and an extension of the ballot due date by 7 1/2 weeks from the time of mailing. We request simultaneous correction of all Club and elections web pages that contain the ballot question, and that a corrections statement simultaneously be issued to all newsletter editors.
We also request the Inspectors to rule for other applicable remedies, to be determined by the Inspectors.
Sincerely,
Fred Elbel, SUSPS
Ed Glaze III, population-sprawl ballot coordinator
==============================================
The preamble included with the Sprawl/Population ballot question in the printed 2001 ballot material, mailed with the 2001 ballots states:
"At its September 2000 meeting, in order to address the same issues raised by the ballot question, the Club's board of Directors adopted a policy that can be summarized as follows:
The relationship between sprawl and population growth is complex. That complexity...should be fully and meaningfully reflected in materials developed by the sprawl campaign. ...[T]here are many locations where the impacts of sprawl are greatly exacerbated by population growth. But sprawl is a pattern of increasingly inefficient and wasteful land use that is devastating environmental and social conditions, not only in regions where population is growing rapidly, but also in regions where it is not. Some places are consuming land at record rates, and yet have stable or declining populations. The Board urges and expects both campaigns to be alert to opportunities for mutually reinforcing messages, campaign materials and efforts.
[The full text of this policy may be found at http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/sprawlpopulation.asp ]".
(Note: the full text of the policy is included at the end of this email.)
==================================================
The full text of the Semtember, 2000 policy is as follows:
from http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/sprawlpopulation.asp
Sprawl and Population
The relationship between sprawl and growth is complex. That complexity, including factors identified by local Sierra Club entities, should be fully and meaningfully reflected in materials developed by the sprawl campaign.
Sierra Club founder John Muir said " when we try to pick out anything in the universe we find it is hitched to everything else." Thus, the actions we take on behalf of one campaign have the potential to affect our other campaigns. Ideally this synergy will result in our campaigns reinforcing and supporting each other.
The potential for this synergy is present in our Sprawl and Population campaigns. Clearly, there are many locations where the impacts of sprawl are greatly exacerbated by population growth. But sprawl is a pattern of increasingly inefficient and wasteful land use that is devastating environmental and social conditions, not only in regions where population is growing rapidly, but also in regions where it is not. Some places are consuming land at record rates, and yet have stable or declining populations.
The Board urges and expects both campaigns to be alert to opportunities for mutually reinforcing messages, campaign materials and efforts.
Passed by the Board of Directors, September 23, 2000.
========================================
========================================
Applicable standing rules.
The following standing rules apply to this objection. Other standing rules may also apply.
SR. 11-1-2: Promotion of Positions on Ballot Issues
A. Ballot Statements
2. Requirements.
a. Each position statement, pro and con, shall have a maximum of 400 words, including the names and affiliations of the signers. No candidate for Director shall be shown as a signer of this or of either of the statements provided for in SR. 11-1-2b.
b. The Secretary shall prescribe the form of the statements, considering such issues of form as are set forth in SR. 5-2-6.1a. The Secretary shall review each statement for form and significant errors of fact. No change in a statement shall be made without the coordinator's specific consent, except to conform to the prescribed format (no wording changes) or to delete any words beyond the limit if the coordinator does not make the statement conform to the form and/or limit within 5 days of a request. If a coordinator refuses to remove significant errors of fact (but not differences of opinion), the Secretary shall cause a correction to be published in the ballot materials, with an asterisk or other mark in the position statement as may be necessary to make the correction clear.
R U L I N G :
From: "MarvinBaker"
Subject: RULING (2001-10) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, ON WORDING OF THE SECRETARY'S INTRODUCTION TO THE SPRAWL/POPULATION BALLOT QUESTION
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001
Dear Fred and Ed:
Below is the ruling of the Inspectors of Election on your complaint dealing with the matter of the substitution of policy wording in the Secretary's Introduction to the sprawl/population question in the ballot pamphlet. If you have questions about the ruling please contact the Inspectors.
Best wishes,
Marvin
RULING (2001-10) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, ON WORDING OF THE SECRETARY'S INTRODUCTION TO THE SPRAWL/POPULATION BALLOT QUESTION
On 19 March 2001, the Inspectors of Election received a complaint from Mr. Fred Elbel, of Sierrans ® for United States Population Stabilization, and Mr. Ed Glaze, III, "pro" position Coordinator of the Sprawl /Population Ballot Question. The focus of this complaint concerns certain wording in the Secretary Introduction or "preamble" in the ballot pamphlet. Specifically, the statement that a vote for the sprawl/population question is a vote to substitute it for the policy adopted in September 2000 by the Board of Directors, is contested by the complainants.
In their complaint, Mr. Elbel and Mr. Glaze state:
We are formally objecting to the statement included with the Sprawl/Population ballot question in the printed 2001 ballot material, mailed with the 2001 ballots. Under the statement of the population/sprawl petition question, the following statement appears in bold:
'A "YES" vote is a vote to adopt the petitioned policy as a substitute for the Board-adopted policy.'
"We specifically object to this wording. A YES vote is NOT a vote to categorically revoke the Board-adopted policy. A YES vote is ONLY a vote to "emphasize both national population stabilization as essential components in all Sierra Club sprawl materials and programs."
This is followed by argument by the complainants that states in detail where they believe the proposed policy would not revoke various portions of the Club policy adopted in September 2000.
In summary, Mr. Elbel and Mr. Glaze state:
"We object to this biased and unfair presentation of the policy change statement, which should have said ' A "YES" vote is a vote to adopt the petitioned policy IN ADDITION TO EXISTING BOARD-adopted policy."
"In addition, we object to inclusion of the preamble to the sprawl/population ballot question for reason that since the policy change statement is incorrect, no inclusion of the September Board resolution is necessary as part of the preamble."
The remedy sought by the complainants is stated thusly:
"We therefore request that the Inspectors rule for an immediate follow-up mailing to all voting Club members explaining that this presentation of the ballot question was biased against the ballot question, and reissuing of new ballots, and an extension of the ballot due date by 7 1/2 weeks from the time of mailing. We request simultaneous correction of all Club and elections web pages that contain the ballot question, and that corrections statement simultaneously be issued to all newsletter editors.
"We also request the Inspectors to rule for other applicable remedies, to be determined by the Inspectors."
The complainants point to Standing Rule 11-1-2 (A) (2) as the authority that supports their view of the matter.
The complaint is a request for the Inspectors to rule on two specific questions:
1. Is the ballot pamphlet policy change statement "biased and unfair" to the intent of the petitioners
question?
2. If the ballot change statement is incorrect, then was it incorrect to include the summary of the policy
adopted by the Board of Directors in September 2000 as part of the preamble?
Contrary to the view of Mr. Elbel and Mr. Glaze, the relevant Standing Rule in this instance is SR 11-3-1 Structure of the Ballot and Ballot Materials, which states, in part:
The Secretary shall prepare the ballot and accompanying materials relating to ballot questions in a manner than clearly presents the question or questions posed and, if changes or amendments to existing policy or procedures are proposed, the current provision(s) , or a summary thereof, shall also be stated for comparison...
Procedurally, the rule states that it is paramount for the membership have a clear presentation of the differences between the existing policy and the proposed policy. Therefore it was appropriate for the Secretary to include a summary of the existing policy as part of his Introduction to provide contrast with the language of the question certified by the Board to the ballot.
Substantively, we are presented by the complainants with the argument that the existing rule and the proposed rule are very close in character, indeed that the proposed rule should be considered simply as a modification of that rule by the insertion of the operative word "all" in a critical sentence and it is a misinterpretation to view the ballot question otherwise. So, what are the differences between the two policies? We have to assume they exist and are substantial in the minds of the petitioners otherwise why is the question on the ballot? The Board of Directors substantially modified the Club's sprawl/population policy statement at its September meeting. It appeared that some Directors and staff felt that this modification had closed the gap between the existing policy and the desires of the petitioners and that an election on the subject would not be necessary. Indeed, this thinking was palpable at the November meeting of the Board of Directors up to the last moment when the representatives of the petitioners decided the September policy changes were insufficient to address their concerns.
[Clarification by SUSPS:
we agreed to compromise wording suggested by Carl Pope and Board member Anne Ehrlich just before the November 2000 Board meeting. At that meeting, the Board voted down its own compromise wording.]
This argument presents the Inspectors with a difficult challenge. We are asked to enter the "political arena" as it were, by substituting our view for that of the Board of Directors. The nuances of melding the proposed policy with the existing policy, should the former prevail in this election, would be the responsibility of the Board of Directors and it would be presumptuous for the Inspectors to insert themselves into this process. We confine ourselves to the election process and the fairness of that process. The petitioners had the opportunity to accept the existing policy as having met their concerns. They decided it was close but still did not go far enough. As a result, the Board of Directors, in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw 11.1, certified to the Secretary the form in which the question would be submitted to the membership on the ballot. There were no objections by representatives of the petitioners present when the Directors took this action at the November meeting.
The Inspectors find there was no violation of any Club rule in the process that led to the certification of the question by the Board of Directors to the Secretary and thus to the ballot. We further rule that Secretary Ogle was acting in compliance with his electoral duties prescribed in the election rules by including the introductory material containing the summary of the existing policy and the statement that a vote to adopt the proposed policy would be a vote to substitute the same for the current Board adopted policy.
Having found no violation of the election rules in this complaint there is no remedy to be prescribed.
Marvin Baker
Chief Inspector of Election, For the Inspectors
S U B S E Q U E N T R U L I N G :
April 7, 2001
ADVISORY OPINION (RULING 2001-13) ON QUESTIONS RAISED BY DIRECTOR VOSS CONCERNING BALLOT PAMPHLET STATEMENTS BY SECRETARY OGLE
On 26 March 2001, Director Rene Voss sent to the Inspectors a request for clarification of its Ruling 2001-10. In that ruling the Inspectors affirmed that the language used by Secretary Charlie Ogle in his introduction to the Sprawl/Population ballot question complied with the relevant election rules. More specifically the Secretary's statement: "A 'YES' vote is a vote to adopt the petitioned policy as a substitute for the Board-adopted policy" did not violate any election rule or directive from the Board of Directors, furthermore it was the proper interpretation of the effect of the ballot question should it prevail.
Director Voss stated: "I am concerned that the complaint was pre-mature and should not have been ripe for review since no harm has been done and therefore no ruling was necessary. Since the outcome is uncertain until the votes are counted there can be no adequate relief during the election." Director Voss then posed four questions that he requested the Inspectors to answer concerning the above ballot statement by the Secretary:
1. "Can the Inspectors establish who's opinion this statement represented at the time the Secretary
placed it on the ballot? (Please ask the Secretary if this represents his opinion, the board's
opinion, or perhaps someone else's)."
2. "Can the Inspectors determine if the ballot question was qualified by the Secretary for the ballot prior to the board policy that is summarized on the ballot?"
3. "If the Secretary qualified the ballot question prior to the board policy, can the Inspectors and the
Secretary explain how the ballot question can be considered a 'substitute' by the members in a
ballot question? (This is not a rhetorical question. Logic dictates that petitioner's ballot question
presumes to address a static policy, rather than one that is changing. Perhaps the board policy
was actually being implemented prior to the one that was adopted formally by the board? The
Inspector[s] and the Secretary should have an explanation for this)."
4. "SR 11-3-1 Structure of the Ballot and Ballot Materials, states, in part: 'The Secretary shall prepare
the ballot and accompanying materials relating to ballot questions in a manner that
clearly presents the question or questions posed and, if changes or amendments to
existing policy or procedures are proposed, the current provision(s), or a summary thereof,
shall also be stated for comparison...' Can the Inspectors determine from the Standing Rule if
the Secretary has the discretion to determine that a ballot question is a 'substitute' rather than
'changes or amendments' to existing policy or procedures?"
In response to question one, Secretary Ogle wrote: "The statement you question reflects my interpretation of the situation. I believe it to be consistent with the board's actions. I do not claim to be expert on interpreting the board's intent, and believe that formal votes are the best way to resolve questions about 'the board's opinion'. There was no formal vote to authorize the statement....Looking at this from a distance, with a bit of hindsight, I do not consider the statement to be ideal, but am quite comfortable with it's use in the explanation of the sprawl question."
Secretary Ogle's answer to question two, was: "My recollection is that the sprawl petition was qualified at the end of last year's election cycle-too late for last year's ballot, very early for this year's, and long before the board adopted the policy that is summarized on the ballot."
On question three, Secretary Ogle responded: Rene raises an interesting point, one that needs to be considered. How can the petition address a policy that has not yet been adopted? He misses, I think, the fact that it's a two way street. A petition may respond to a policy, and thus create a situation in which a substitution is asked for. This is the situation that Rene seems to expect, and the one that he seems to consider appropriate. But is equally possible for a policy to respond to a petition, and thus create an opportunity for substitution.
"Here the policy responded to the petition, and Rene seems to suggest that the facts therefore do not support the notion that the petition would, if passed, replace the policy. I fail to see why not. We have two approaches to a question that might be stated as 'how should the club fit population and sprawl together in campaigns', one approach is proposed by the petitioners, the other was adopted by the board. We can strictly adhere to one, but not both. The election will determine which is favored by the membership. The board policy is current, the petition asks that a different approach be taken. It is fair, I think, to say that the issue is the potential substitution of one for the other..."
"One might argue that the two can be melded, thus the vote does not need to be portrayed in such a black and while, either/or way. A problem with this is that it is always, or at least usually, true and can easily be used as a technique for minimizing the impact of a petition. We can say that there isn't really a conflict, we can say that we can keep almost all of the existing policy, just make minimum changes to accommodate the petition. This is a potential abuse of the process, a way in which petitions can be undermined. If we can not do this perfectly, if we are to err, I would favor error on the side of an overbroad interpretation of a petition, rather than a minimization of the petition."
The opinion of the Inspectors is that Secretary Ogle has thoughtfully addressed the first three questions posed by Director Voss. We agree with his interpretations and can find no evidence that his actions were contrary to any of the election rules and that he has acted prudently throughout in following the directives to the Secretary contained in Bylaw 11.1; Bylaw 11.3; and Standing Rule 11-3-1.
Executive Director Carl Pope has addressed the authority of the Secretary to act in these circumstances noting that the Bylaws: "...leave with the Secretary the power to determine which aspects of Club policy would be modified by the proposed ballot resolution, and how. The goal being given the highest priority by this choice is that the members are told, in advance, what the impact on existing Club policy of passing the resolution will be. The rules, could, of course, have delegated this decision to someone other than the Secretary--the Inspectors, the Board, a new Committee--but they don't.
"In this case, the Secretary determined that the ballot resolution constituted a new policy, and should be substituted for the entirety of the existing policy. Substituted in this case does not refer to the intent of those who signed the petition; if refers to the effect if a majority of the members choose to vote yes on the Resolution. I have not discussed with the Secretary his reasoning, but independently I believe that he reached the correct conclusion...."
"Thus confronted with evolving Club policy, the Secretary chose to give the greatest possible scope to the intent of the ballot question, and to inform the members that they were faced with the choice between two fundamentally different policy approaches to the same problem. I believe that any alternative, while it might please the petitioners in this case, would open the door in the future to even more mischief, because [if] the Secretary can determine that existing Club policy will continue to modify policy passed by a vote of the members, he could easily nullify the ability of the membership to change course when they desired to do so. Again, there is no perfect solution here; but I think a solution that allows the Secretary prior to the vote, or the Board after the vote, to cut and past[e] existing policy with a ballot resolution, is far more dangerous to the petition process."
The Inspectors agree with the above, and in response to Director Voss' fourth question, we answer that the Secretary did indeed have the authority to state that the ballot question, if passed, would substitute for the existing policy on this subject.
Therefore our earlier ruling (2001-10) stands. The Sprawl/Population ballot question, if approved by the members, would, as stated by the Secretary in his ballot pamphlet statement, replace the existing Board policy adopted in September 2000.
Marvin Baker
Chief Inspector of Election, For the Inspectors
|
