Regardless of which way the result of the ballot goes there's a strong likelihood that a group of dissatisfied punters will be crying 'Foul, the ballot papers were a cock-up' ... and the whole sorry saga will begin again 
.Incorrect Ballot Papers
-
Yorkshireman
- Posts: 352
- Joined: 6 Jan 2007, 6:59am
- Location: North Hykeham, Lincoln.
- Contact:
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
It does indeed make one think, John Regardless of which way the result of the ballot goes there's a strong likelihood that a group of dissatisfied punters will be crying 'Foul, the ballot papers were a cock-up' ... and the whole sorry saga will begin again .
Regardless of which way the result of the ballot goes there's a strong likelihood that a group of dissatisfied punters will be crying 'Foul, the ballot papers were a cock-up' ... and the whole sorry saga will begin again .Colin N.
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/
Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... but the wind is mostly in your face!
http://www.freewebs.com/yorkshireman1/
-
Kevin Mayne
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 15 Jan 2010, 9:02am
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
An update on the process and some general commentary on posts since I last posted.
We are looking out for three main issues:
Source data that was incorrect - something in the membership record. This poll is a very useful test of the data because it presents a one off chance to correspond with everyone in a single format.
Something wrong with the processing - like a magazine not received.
Something wrong with the papers - such as the printer's fault.
With the first two items we are also comparing this to the usual monthly figures triggered by renewals and magine mailings so we can see if anything unusual has happened. As published elsewhere and reported at AGMs we are currently running at around 300 complaints per year from the day to day membership and magazine mailing activity of the Club. (Circa 300,000 mailings per year)
In voting terms we need to be able to count every recorded instance in the process and at the end a decision can be made as to whether any issues might be considered material in the final count. Clearly turnout and magin will be an issue, numbers we just don't know yet. We are engaging external advisors to attend the count and oversee the procedures and representatives from the petitioners will be attending the count. They will be able to see and judge for themselves.
What we have so far:
Just over 64,000 members eligible to vote.
Approximately 20,000 are deemed by our regulations to have waived their right to an individual ballot paper in the magazine, either because they have decided not to receive a magazine or because they are at a shared address as a family or household member. Those opting out of the mag get a personal ballot paper mailed to them.
A problem with family members with 4 or more members was identified very early because of the printer error. 2104 families were sent a replacement form. Their forms can be identified before counting starts and only one valid form will be included in the count.
Additionally 61 members have contacted the returning officer to ask for a replacement form of which 27 were asking for replacement of a lost or spoiled form. The inbound votes will also be checked for these names to avoid duplicates.
Of the remaining 34 contacts there are a mixture of reasons for asking for a replacement but they do include underlying data errors, mainly around extra household or family members or missing household and family members. This is particularly useful to see how widespread this is because in some cases the individuals seem to have been successfully renewed despite the household link not apparently working correctly. However this number is not outside the trend for a normal mag mailing which suggests no underlying systemic problem.
In some cases there may be a duplication, for example John W, because we wouldn't know about the error in his family data until after the printer had mailed his replacement form.
The ouststanding item now appears to be whether the replcements arrive in a timely manner - I know we are still getting pre-Christmas post at home so again we will have to compare the numbers to the turnout and margin.
If anyone has not contacted Returning Officer Peter Jackson by now can we ask you to do so very urgently as time is short to replace and return any voting forms.
We are looking out for three main issues:
Source data that was incorrect - something in the membership record. This poll is a very useful test of the data because it presents a one off chance to correspond with everyone in a single format.
Something wrong with the processing - like a magazine not received.
Something wrong with the papers - such as the printer's fault.
With the first two items we are also comparing this to the usual monthly figures triggered by renewals and magine mailings so we can see if anything unusual has happened. As published elsewhere and reported at AGMs we are currently running at around 300 complaints per year from the day to day membership and magazine mailing activity of the Club. (Circa 300,000 mailings per year)
In voting terms we need to be able to count every recorded instance in the process and at the end a decision can be made as to whether any issues might be considered material in the final count. Clearly turnout and magin will be an issue, numbers we just don't know yet. We are engaging external advisors to attend the count and oversee the procedures and representatives from the petitioners will be attending the count. They will be able to see and judge for themselves.
What we have so far:
Just over 64,000 members eligible to vote.
Approximately 20,000 are deemed by our regulations to have waived their right to an individual ballot paper in the magazine, either because they have decided not to receive a magazine or because they are at a shared address as a family or household member. Those opting out of the mag get a personal ballot paper mailed to them.
A problem with family members with 4 or more members was identified very early because of the printer error. 2104 families were sent a replacement form. Their forms can be identified before counting starts and only one valid form will be included in the count.
Additionally 61 members have contacted the returning officer to ask for a replacement form of which 27 were asking for replacement of a lost or spoiled form. The inbound votes will also be checked for these names to avoid duplicates.
Of the remaining 34 contacts there are a mixture of reasons for asking for a replacement but they do include underlying data errors, mainly around extra household or family members or missing household and family members. This is particularly useful to see how widespread this is because in some cases the individuals seem to have been successfully renewed despite the household link not apparently working correctly. However this number is not outside the trend for a normal mag mailing which suggests no underlying systemic problem.
In some cases there may be a duplication, for example John W, because we wouldn't know about the error in his family data until after the printer had mailed his replacement form.
The ouststanding item now appears to be whether the replcements arrive in a timely manner - I know we are still getting pre-Christmas post at home so again we will have to compare the numbers to the turnout and margin.
If anyone has not contacted Returning Officer Peter Jackson by now can we ask you to do so very urgently as time is short to replace and return any voting forms.
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
So of the membership of 64,000 we have had 34 genuine errors.
This forum seems to have been very disproportionately affected.
This forum seems to have been very disproportionately affected.
Yma o Hyd
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
meic wrote:So of the membership of 64,000 we have had 34 genuine errors.
This forum seems to have been very disproportionately affected.
Not sure that it is that disproportionately affected. According to the stats at be bottom of the opening page there are 13,965 members of the forum. This thread has had 77 posts and 1692 views. Allowing for people revisiting I speculate that possibly somewhere in the region of 500 to 1000 individual members will have viewed the thread.
I haven't gone through in detail but I don't think there have been more than a dozen real problems reported in the thread. If we take 12 as a proportion of 500 it is still quite small and very small against the nearly 14K members of the forum.
Regards,
John
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
Twelve out of 500 is a LOT greater proportion than 34 out of 64,000.
As for 14,000 members of this forum.
I am a member of a few forums myself that I have forgotten about and we dont have to be in the CTC (ie a voter) to use it.
Of those 1,600 viewings of this thread, 50 were me alone.
Even if we accept the over optimistic figure of 500 people viewing this thread and ignore the hassle of having to register and login to report to an unofficial poll, which I would not bother to do on a site that I only have passing interest in.
12 out of 500 is not in the same ball park as 34 out of 64,000.
The fact that is being ignored here is that most of the errors with the voting slips are being not reported by those who have not received them.
Well Kevin and John can continue to insist that the level of error is around 1 in 2,000 but they can not say that it hasnt been pointed out that this is totally unrealistic and based on very dubious assumptions.
In short the analysis offered by you both is in my opinion too far from reality to let it go unchallenged.
Not that it matters as only a hundred people will read this at the most.
However aside from that technicality I dont believe that the error will have any bearing on the fairness and outcome of the vote. In so much as it will have an equal effect on votes for and against.
As for 14,000 members of this forum.
I am a member of a few forums myself that I have forgotten about and we dont have to be in the CTC (ie a voter) to use it.
Of those 1,600 viewings of this thread, 50 were me alone.
Even if we accept the over optimistic figure of 500 people viewing this thread and ignore the hassle of having to register and login to report to an unofficial poll, which I would not bother to do on a site that I only have passing interest in.
12 out of 500 is not in the same ball park as 34 out of 64,000.
The fact that is being ignored here is that most of the errors with the voting slips are being not reported by those who have not received them.
Well Kevin and John can continue to insist that the level of error is around 1 in 2,000 but they can not say that it hasnt been pointed out that this is totally unrealistic and based on very dubious assumptions.
In short the analysis offered by you both is in my opinion too far from reality to let it go unchallenged.
Not that it matters as only a hundred people will read this at the most.
However aside from that technicality I dont believe that the error will have any bearing on the fairness and outcome of the vote. In so much as it will have an equal effect on votes for and against.
Yma o Hyd
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
meic wrote:..............aside from that technicality I dont believe that the error will have any bearing on the fairness and outcome of the vote. In so much as it will have an equal effect on votes for and against.
How will the charity commissioners view it though?
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
meic wrote:So of the membership of 64,000 we have had 34 genuine errors.
This forum seems to have been very disproportionately affected.
Wrong. Did you not see where Kevin said they had sent out 2104 replacement family forms. They were for 4/5 member groups, so we are talking in the region of nine thousand members affected out of the 64000 eligible to vote. That makes (ICBA with too much accuracy) more than one in eight, or over 12.5%.
Bit more than 34.
And no, the Charity Commissioners would almost certainly not look kindly on that sort of mix up.
Fellowship Is Life! Unity Is Strength!
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
Clarion wrote:....................no, the Charity Commissioners would almost certainly not look kindly on that sort of mix up.
Just as I thought - and we're still not certain that the membership list is accurate and up to date. Our section secretary will tell you that getting such info is difficult beyond humman telling - do other sections find the same?
I submit that, in order to have confidence in the vote, every single member would have to have voted, and the majority would have to be very substantial indeed.
I've voted - and I knew which way to vote and I know which way I've voted. The majority would have to be vast for me to be confident that the errors were insignificant - irrespective of which way the vote goes. I really don't like this episode at all.
-
Karen Sutton
- Posts: 608
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:18pm
- Location: Greater Manchester
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
JohnW wrote:Clarion wrote:....................no, the Charity Commissioners would almost certainly not look kindly on that sort of mix up.
Just as I thought - and we're still not certain that the membership list is accurate and up to date. Our section secretary will tell you that getting such info is difficult beyond humman telling - do other sections find the same?
I submit that, in order to have confidence in the vote, every single member would have to have voted, and the majority would have to be very substantial indeed.
I've voted - and I knew which way to vote and I know which way I've voted. The majority would have to be vast for me to be confident that the errors were insignificant - irrespective of which way the vote goes. I really don't like this episode at all.
I used to get a list reasonably regularly before Adrian Lawson left CTC. I had to ask for the last one, (I got it on 9th December, the first list since 25th October). I have heard that the lists are due to be sent out again so I'll see if I get it without having to ask again.
What I have always had trouble with is getting an up to date list of our registered volunteers. I like to check it twice a year as CTC has always had a habit of 'losing' people off it. Two of our volunteers had mysteriously gone of it when I get the last one last October. Getting it sent to me is like getting blood out of a stone.
Well the ballot closes today. It will be good to hear the result.
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
Karen Sutton wrote: Well the ballot closes today. It will be good to hear the result.
Me too Karen, the counting of the votes will take place here at National Office on Monday 17th January, commencing at 9:00am and could well take most of the day. I understand that Jeff Tollerman who submitted the request for the Poll has been invited to attend as an observer. There will be independent observers from ERS and Russell Cooke, the Club's solicitors.
David
Re: Incorrect Ballot Papers
gaz wrote:Report from the Returning Officer.
Containing comment on the procedures followed for the issue of ballot papers, errors identified, replacement papers and the count itself.
Whoops! I can see severals howling errors in the Returning Officer's report, if posts from National Office on here previously and reports to Council are to be believed.
I wonder whether they'll be able to spot them?