-
Automated report produced by voting application on the computer
-
The long debated initiative to trade the CV Real Estate building for the Storage building near Southampton passed at this mornings meeting of the Delegate Assembly. The vote, using the new clickers for the first time, was two to one in favor of the swap.
The use of the clickers, went almost flawlessly. One glitch involved the accidental return of the wrong ID Cards to two Residents, whose name differed by only one letter. This error has of course been corrected.
125 Delegates voted and the result, seen in the above graphic, was collected and tallied by the computer in under two minutes.
While most Delegates who came to the microphone expressed valid concerns, and brought good questions, a small group of "The Usual Suspects" having no valid counter arguments simply engaged in delaying tactics, in an attempt to get enough Delegates to walk out, thus denying a quorum. Fortunately, this tactic failed.
A few Delegates, five to be exact, refused to exchange their ID Card for the clicker, thus denying their Associations a voice in this important issue. There is no valid reason to not provide your ID, the clickers are costly items and we need to be sure we can have them returned after the meeting.
Be advised, that if any Delegate loses their ID card in our new clicker based voting process, Eva Rachesky has agreed to replace the ID card free of charge.
Finally, many thanks to the Ad-Hoc Clicker Committee; Chaired by John Gragg. John Gragg, Ken Graff, Jody Lebel, David Boas and others, have worked long hours to get the clicker initiative ready for prime time.
Finally, many thanks to the Ad-Hoc Clicker Committee; Chaired by John Gragg. John Gragg, Ken Graff, Jody Lebel, David Boas and others, have worked long hours to get the clicker initiative ready for prime time.
Let's hear your comments on the building swap, and the new clicker based voting system, in the Comment stream.
Dave Israel
I didn't attend the DA this morning. I am glad, having read the above blog post, that the swap deal passed. Passing by a nearly two-to-one margin suggests to me that voting members are sick and tired of those who try by one means or another to block everything you and the UCO administration propose. I am not saying the opposition doesn't sometimes make valid points. I think they sometimes do. But these get so lost amid their negativity about EVERYTHING, it is wearying. I skim-read the latest issue of the Messenger. Was there ANYTHING uncritical in it?
ReplyDeleteI was happily surprised to learn there were minimal mixups in the delegates having to surrender their clickers. That was negative ME thinking in my blog comment that could not go smoothly! Thanks are certainly due Eva Rachesky for being so cooperative in straightening out the mixup with the two delegates getting their clickers back AND being willing to replace clickers if necessary at no charge.
This last seems to me just another small example of how it pays for UCO and WPRF to GET ALONG TOGETHER if they possibly can, which I know you have encouraged, and NOT for us to be constantly in an adversarial relationship. We are in our retirement years, after all. This especially should be a time to enjoy what we have whether on the UCO or association level. Going halfway won't do it, because we will always argue about where halfway is. Going 75 percent of the way very often makes the other fellow want to go more than halfway, too.
I am pleased to know that the delegates saw fit to pass the swap of buildings and that they stayed long enough to vote. With all of the negatives presented. I didn't hear an alternate about where the Reporter and Channels 63 and 95 should operate if UCO was to keep ownership of the Real Estate building. They couldn't remain in Camden with all of the mold that had developed, causing evacuation of that site. They couldn't operate out of the Real Estate building without razing it and putting up another one at great expense to the unit owners due to its present condition. For the Reporter to rent space outside of the Village would be another inconvenience and expense to the unit owners. The Reporter staff is very thankful to Eva Rachesky for her gracious offer to let them operate temporarily in the clubhouse until the Southampton building is ready for occupancy. The clubhouse is a rec facility which the Reporter and TV channels are not. The swap was a good and only choice, and the delegates spoke to this by their vote.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the Camden Pool building was more than some mold, as I understood it. It was with deadly chlorine gas, from the chlorine used to purify the pool water, seeping into the building. Probably not much, but enough to be a health hazard over a period of time.
DeleteI thought that the vote for the building exchange was tabled to delay when the snowbird delegates would be back and more people had a chance to vote. This is not a small decision and it is too bad that some delegates who are up north could not vote.
ReplyDeleteI think it was well the DA DIDN'T wait for the snowbirds to come back. Think about it: Snowbirds are not back in numbers until December, and they remain here in numbers only through April. Do we put off any decision considered "not a small one" for seven months of the twelve? I can see holding off on a REALLY major decision such as renewal of the Millennium Agreement or a major overhaul of the UCO bylaws (being worked on now), but the building swap doesn't fit that category in my opinion. "Not a small one," as you describe, it fits better, I think.
DeleteAt the previous DA Assembly, the vote on the buildings was "tabled," not tabled "until the winter residents returned." UCO business goes on for 12 months of the year.
ReplyDeleteI am a Delegate and go away for 3 months every summer. We have alternate Delegates. That means just because some people are snowbirds there is no reason not to have alternates. My snowbird friends are here for only 5 months! UCO cannot stop conducting business; any business for 7 months of the year.
ReplyDelete