|
Summary:
Our objection is that the preamble to the population-sprawl ballot question on the ballot is essentially an extension of the argument against the ballot question and therefore presents the ballot question in an unbalanced manner. The Election Inspectors ruled that this introduction to the ballot question is not a violation of election rules.
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 Preamble
We are formally objecting to the preamble included with the Sprawl/Population ballot question in the printed 2001 ballot material, mailed with the 2001 ballots. The preamble 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.)
We specifically object to inclusion of this September, 2000 Board resolution in the preamble. The preamble restates the premises of the opposing 400 word ballot statement. As such, it represents an extended and expanded argument for the opposing ballot position and therefore violates the standing rules limiting ballot statements to 400 words.
Furthermore, this is clearly a biased and unfair presentation of the ballot question - a presentation that is supposed to be neutral, aside from the 400 word ballot statements. We object to this biased and unfair presentation. In addition, the preamble was added to the ballot question while, as addressed by a separate objection, most of the wording of the ballot question was excluded from the ballot printing.
Also note that the preamble is *not* required as referenced by the policy change clause on the printed ballot material (under the population-sprawl petition question). This is addressed in a separate objection.
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 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.
B. Promotion of Positions (Electioneering)
7. Use of Club Resources. Without authorization of the Board of Directors, no Club funds or other resources, such as official publications and other forums or means of communication, including newsletters and web pages and including those of Sierra Club chapters, groups and other entities, shall be used in support of or opposition to any ballot issue, including circulation of petitions or solicitation of signatures on petitions, unless both sides have the same opportunity.
R U L I N G :
From: "MarvinBaker"
Subject: RULING (2001-9) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, CONCERNING THE SECRETARY'S PREAMBLE TO THE SPRAWL/POPULATIONL BALLOT QUESTION
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
Dear Fred and Ed:
Below is the ruling of the Inspectors of Election on your complaint concerning the Secretary's Introduction to the ballot question on sprawl/population.
Please contact us if you have any questions about this ruling.
Best wishes,
Marvin
RULING (2001-9) ON COMPLAINT BY FRED ELBEL AND ED GLAZE, III, CONCERNING THE SECRETARY'S PREAMBLE TO THE SPRAWL/POPULATION BALLOT QUESTION
On 19 March 2001, the Inspectors of Election received a complaint from Mr. Fred Elbel, writing on behalf of himself and Mr. Ed Glaze III, the "pro" Sprawl/Population Coordinator. The focus of this complaint is the introduction or preamble included in the ballot pamphlet which summarizes the existing Club policy on the relationship between urban sprawl and population growth. This policy statement was adopted by the Board of Directors at its September 2000 meeting.
In his complaint, Mr. Elbel states:
"We specifically object to inclusion of this September, 2000 Board resolution in the preamble. The preamble restates the premises of the opposing 400 word ballot statement. As such, it represents an extended and expanded argument for the opposing ballot position and therefore violates the standing rules limiting ballot statements to 400 words."
"Furthermore, this is clearly a biased and unfair presentation of the ballot question-a presentation that is supposed to be neutral, aside from the 400 word ballot statements. We object to this biased and unfair presentation. In addition, the preamble was added to the ballot question while, as addressed by a separate objection, most of the wording of the ballot question was excluded from the ballot printing."
"Also note that the preamble is 'not' required as referenced by the policy change clause on the printed ballot material (under the population-sprawl petition question). This is addressed in a separate objection."
Mr. Elbel continues by specifying the remedy he and Mr. Glaze seek:
""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 71/2 weeks from the time of mailing. We request simultaneous correction of all club and election 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."
The complaint is a request for the Inspectors to rule on two specific questions:
First, is the Secretary's Introduction (preamble) an "extended and expanded argument" that violates the requirement that limits ballot pamphlet position statements to 400 words?
2. Is this Introduction also a "clearly biased and unfair presentation of the ballot question?
Other objections noted in the complaint are dealt with in separate rulings.
Contrary to the view of Mr. Elbel, the Inspectors find that the provisions of Standing Rule 11-1-2 (A) (2), Ballot Statement Requirements, which he references in his complaint, do not apply in this matter nor does the reference to Standing Rule 11-1-2 (B) (7),Use of Club Resources provide guidance for a ruling.
The Inspectors are guided in our ruling by the provisions of Standing Rule 11-3-1,Structure of the Ballot and Ballot Materials. This rule reads:
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. If more than one alternative to existing policy is proposed, members shall be given a choice among them and a "none-of-the-above" option. The ballot shall state that this option would preserve existing policy. Any ballot issue must receive a majority of the votes cast to prevail, provided that quorum votes on the issue.
Our ruling is that SR 11-3-1 made it mandatory for the Secretary to prepare an introduction in the ballot pamphlet that included the "current provision(s), or a summary thereof" of the existing policy at issue here. Therefore the Introduction that is the basis of this complaint is not in violation of the election rules.
We further rule that the language of the Introduction is not "biased and unfair" to the proponents of the "pro" side of this ballot question. Indeed, we find it simply summarizes the existing Board policy and then states the related ballot question.
Having ruled that the Introduction is not in violation of the election rules there is no remedy required.
Marvin Baker,
Chief Inspector of Election, For The Inspectors
|
