# Secret Ballot



## proelite06 (Feb 9, 2011)

??????????????


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

A secret ballot is allowed, however, the issue is that the MD director did vote but there is a preponderance of evidence that the MD director did not vote for the candidate that he was instructed to vote for by his state association. Furthermore, there is additional heresay evidence of his disbelief that his state had the authority to direct him how to vote.

The NFAA director represents the state and the state does have the authority to instruct the director how to vote on any issue, if it so desires. If the director fails to follow state association instructions duly put to him, further action involving the director is state association business and to be dealt with only by the subject state.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

exactly Jim. And the secret ballot only confuses the issue. With an open ballot there is no heresay. Everything is out in the open.


----------



## montigre (Oct 13, 2008)

Yes, the NFAA bylaws do allow for a secret ballot, but, since this was merely a formality as Rattleman stated, I'd like to know who at the meeting made the recommendation to have it done in secret unless a possible contentious vote was expected. As a newbie, I'm not questioning the votes, that's for people with more years under their belts than I have, but I am questioning the overall process.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Watch it Monti you may be labeled "a Pot Stirrer"


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

Rattleman said:


> Watch it Monti you may be labeled "a Pot Stirrer"


Everything will be good as long as noone is called a Nazi


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

*thanks*

Thanks John. Just throw me under the bus why don't ya. Whatcha tryin to do get me banned again for startin a thread. Some friend


----------



## Unclegus (May 27, 2003)

what are friends for????


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

The vote was expected to be contentious, although five director votes for Dave had been ordered by those five state associations. The actual vote was 4/3 and the four votes were confirmed and sworn informally after the meeting, thereby confirming the identity of the vote cast contrary to state association direction.

The failure to follow state direction did not alter the outcome, but the principle of the issue remains important.


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

FS560 said:


> The vote was expected to be contentious, although five director votes for Dave had been ordered by those five state associations. The actual vote was 4/3 and the four votes were confirmed and sworn informally after the meeting, thereby confirming the identity of the vote cast contrary to state association direction.
> 
> The failure to follow state direction did not alter the outcome, but the principle of the issue remains important.


Jim,
Issues like this do significant damage to organized archery and the NFAA in general. Like Ed, I too was once the Archery Chairman for my club. I went through great pains to call meetings or get the consensus for voting on agenda items. I had suspicions many times that votes did not reflect the will of the members. Thanks for confirming it does happen. While I understand your statement that action should come from the State organization the NFAA should not stand on the sidelines. Their 'hands-off' approach IMHO shows how little they care.

Is it any wonder why after witnessing this stuff go on that people stop participating in the process? 

Jerry


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Jerry, NFAA is an organization of states, whereby the states legislate the constitution and bylaws through their NFAA director at directors meetings or mail ballots.

The state selects its director and sends the director to the bi-annual directors meeting in February and the annual sectional directors meeting in June.

If the director does not follow his state's directives, it is state business and not the business of the NFAA to step in as "big brother" or "supreme national power" and tell the state what to do. Sovereign rights of the states are as important in NFAA as they should be in the USA, and none of us should ever forget that in either instance.

What would you have NFAA do? Would you have NFAA rebuke the MD director because the state does not want to do it or have the backbone to do it?

In the eyes of NFAA, the election was held and MD cast a vote. End of discussion in NFAA's eyes. If the vote was not as directed by the state, it is still up to the state to do what it needs to do, or not.


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Well said Jim


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

FS560 said:


> Jerry, NFAA is an organization of states, whereby the states legislate the constitution and bylaws through their NFAA director at directors meetings or mail ballots.
> 
> The state selects its director and sends the director to the bi-annual directors meeting in February and the annual sectional directors meeting in June.
> 
> ...


Jim,
I agree that this issue is mostly a MD problem. In the end the MAA should be the one to 'call out' the State Director. I don't expect the NFAA to rebuke anything. What is done is done. I expect them to acknowledge that this is unacceptable and to say so. Send a message. *THEY* are the ones who wrote the constitution and by-laws and should have a vested interest in assuring the rules are followed. What I have witnessed over the years is a bunch of Directors who vote as they please...ignore the will of those they represent...and nobody says a thing. That's a great system. And...as you defend...it is OK for the NFAA to sit back and say "It's not my problem". IMHO I think it's time for somebody to review the term 'leadership' in the dictionary.

Jerry


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

I continue to think that the NFAA constitution and bylaws were followed and there is nothing for big brother (NFAA) to say is unacceptable. If MD procedures were not followed, it still remains a state issue.

It is unfair for NFAA to be expected to police state issues in an organization of states. We should be careful, because the way to lose all authority (or rights) is to give it up a little at a time, and then before you know, it is all gone, never to be restored.


----------



## DFA (Dec 30, 2002)

Agree with Jim 100%
DFA


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

I have always said that if you open a can of worms then it is your responcibility you put the lid back on when you are finished. I have spoken with the NFAA director of Maryland and he set me straight on this matter. 1st of all, we the clubs in the MAA should never had voted on the councilman of the Mid Atlantic. This vote is the responcibility of the director only. The agenda that was sent to the MAA secretary by the director of New York should have been sent to the Maryland NFAA director. See : NFAA Constitution Article VII, sec J (page20). Had this been sent through the proper channels we never would have been put into this situation in the first place. Now the NFAA director of Maryland could have voted like the state wanted but he is in no way required to vote this way, at least I have yet to find any requirement for this in the MAA or NFAA constitution. Unfortunately had the director brought this up at the May MAA meeting when the vote was cast this could have been avoided. As far as the secret ballot is concerned, well I now understand that the directors vote on this matter is private. So in conclusion I offer my apology to Ron West for even stirring up this hornet nest.


----------



## xring1 (May 28, 2008)

I thought the directors job was to represent the state, and vote on matters for them as instructed to by the state as a whole. ???


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

Normally yes but this was not one of those times. Per the NFAA constitution this whole process from the beginnig was screwed up. Read the articles per the above.


----------



## xring1 (May 28, 2008)

I think thats BULLS$*@ , why would you have a rep from your state if they werent going to vote the way everyone in your state wants. Hell even us dumb ole hillbillies do that!!!


----------



## Rattleman (Jul 6, 2004)

I understand but from what I read the director of your state should have been the one to get the info. He did not have to share that info with the rest of you. At this point he can vote however he wants. If he decides to allow the NFAA shooters of your state to vote on this and then deliver thatt vote ok but he is not required to do this. Check out the constitution and make your own decisions.


----------



## xring1 (May 28, 2008)

He may not be required to share with us , but at least he has enough consideration to do so !


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Ed, I think your analysis is incorrect. The state association is the organizational entity of the organization of states making up the NFAA, not the individual director. The individual directors are simply elected, appointed, or selected representatives of their state associations and bound by state association requirements as applicable.

Since the directror represents the state association in all matters with the NFAA, nothing in the NFAA constitution confers immunity of the director from state control of the detail and manner of his representation thereof, including election of the councilman.

It is absurd for the state director to defend his defiance of state association instructions with the claim that the NFAA constitution releives the state association of its sole authority over its director representative in councilman elections.

Again, as I have said previously, once the director comes to the meeting, NFAA must conclude that the director is acting according to the instructions of his parent entity, the state association. If the director does not act accordingly, it is up to the state association to police the matter.


----------



## IGluIt4U (Sep 22, 2004)

I think, to make it simple, we elect an NFAA director to represent our best interests in regards to our NFAA region. You are correct, the 'vote' to the members should not have happened, this information should have gone directly to the representative, not the MAA or it's members, per se. If this had been properly executed, the members would have had no 'say' and our rep would have voted for who he thought could best serve our region in the NFAA.



Rattleman said:


> I have always said that if you open a can of worms then it is your responcibility you put the lid back on when you are finished. I have spoken with the NFAA director of Maryland and he set me straight on this matter. 1st of all, we the clubs in the MAA should never had voted on the councilman of the Mid Atlantic. This vote is the responcibility of the director only. The agenda that was sent to the MAA secretary by the director of New York should have been sent to the Maryland NFAA director. See : NFAA Constitution Article VII, sec J (page20). Had this been sent through the proper channels we never would have been put into this situation in the first place. Now the NFAA director of Maryland could have voted like the state wanted but he is in no way required to vote this way, at least I have yet to find any requirement for this in the MAA or NFAA constitution. Unfortunately had the director brought this up at the May MAA meeting when the vote was cast this could have been avoided. As far as the secret ballot is concerned, well I now understand that the directors vote on this matter is private. So in conclusion I offer my apology to Ron West for even stirring up this hornet nest.


----------



## xring1 (May 28, 2008)

*What???*

That sounds like pure **** to me!!!


----------

