IWW Ballot Committee for Summer 1994 Referendum-- Special Report

We are the fellow workers duly elected by the San Francisco General 
Membership Branch of the IWW to determine the results of the referendum 
initiated in June, 1994. Amongst us are two branch secretaries and one 
at-large delegate; from these vantage points we are in communication with 
Wobblies both in and outside of our respective branches. In the course of 
our work as secretaries and delegates, some of us have heard concerns of 
irregularities in the distribution of ballots for this referendum. 
Although nothing we heard was conclusive, we felt a special obligation to 
examine more closely the balloting process, so we could present the 
results of the referendum with confidence that our democratic process is 
functioning as it should. We felt that a special report is warranted to 
speak to those concerns, as well as the membership as a whole, about how 
we can make our balloting process work as best it can.

The following report is not intended to be a detailed report on the 
status of each or any particular Fellow Worker's eligibility to vote or 
that of her ballot, nor an analysis of the receipt (or lack thereof) of 
any particular FW's ballot. The General Administration may be able to 
offer further insights with that sort of approach; rather, it was our 
intent to, in the process of validating the ballots, also look into the 
very functionings of our union's most basic of democratic processes, so 
that we might verify the integrity thereof. What follows is a report on 
that process, and the conclusions the Summer '94 Ballot Committee drew 
therefrom.

We began our examination of the balloting process by locating the mailing 
list actually used to mail ballots. From ballots returned as 
undeliverable we determined that the list was dated 6/2. FW Collins 
indicated that the list used is the same list used to mail the GOB, a 
copy of which GST Rush has made a practice of keeping. We then compared 
this list with the eligibility list, produced on 7/13, that GA provided 
the ballot committee with which to verify unvouched ballots. Differences 
were identified and tabulated for both lists. In particular, we checked 
off in black everyone on the eligibility list that was mailed a ballot.

For those fellow workers that appeared on the mailing list but not the 
eligibility list, we tried to verify their eligibility using the 
delegate reports provided by GA that were received subsequent to 7/13. We 
removed any remaining envelopes used to mail ballots, and placed any 
enclosed dues or delegate reports on the GST's desk, and sorted the 
ballots into vouched and unvouched piles, and started an invalid ballot 
pile. For the vouched ballots we verified that the vouching delegate was 
a current delegate, and checked off in red on the eligibility list each 
member who returned a vouched ballot, and tabulated the number of vouched 
ballots returned by members not on the eligibility list. These were 
placed in a box for valid ballots.

For the unvouched ballots we first searched for the member name on the 
eligibility list. If we found it we checked it off in blue and placed it 
in the valid ballot box. If we could not find the name there, we searched 
for it in the delegates' reports provided, and then in the computer 
records. The ballots were ruled valid or invalid and placed in the 
appropriate pile. Tallies were kept for valid & invalid ballots through 
this process.

From this process we observed the following: The mailing list from 6/2 
had 342 members listed. Of that number, 241 were on the eligibility list 
of 7/13. We view the fact that ballots were sent to a larger pool of 
members than are actually eligible as positive, for two reasons. First, 
it gives fellow workers who have lapsed an opportunity to get reinvolved. 
Second, a generous policy of sending ballots makes it less likely that 
some fellow worker will not get a ballot due to slow processing of paperwork.

The eligibility list had 301 members. Of these, 234 were mailed ballots. 
60 of the members on this list neither were sent ballots by GA nor 
returned ballots to GA. Spot-checking of computer records, as well as the 
high number of members on the 6/2 list not in good standing by 7/13 
suggest that this is in part due to high member turnover, as well as the 
gap between 6/2 and 7/13. Also, the inclusion of new members on a list 
generated at the close of balloting would affect this margin somewhat.

However, having 20% of the members eligible to vote be without any known 
opportunity to do so is a problem that needs to be addressed. Even with 
the above-mentioned factors, we cannot be sure that every member who was 
eligible to vote had the chance to do so. This is disturbing, but there 
are other counterbalances too. We think that this ambiguity is a result 
of the system itself, and as such, we all have a role to play in 
addressing it.

There were 118 valid ballots and 8 invalid ballots for this referendum. 
Of the 8 invalid ballots, 2 were unmarked duplicates, three were returned 
undeliverable, 1 was postmarked too late, and two were from members with 
no record we could obtain of being in good standing for this referendum.

Of the valid ballots, 19 were vouched ballots from members not on the 
eligibility list, and one was an unvouched ballot from a fellow worker 
not on the eligibility list, but in good standing according to computer 
records as of 7/16. It is noteworthy that 64, over half of the 118 
ballots, were vouched by a delegate. This indicates the important role 
that the delegates play in IWW referenda.

We think it is inevitable that GA's information will always lag behind 
the information of delegates and branches; such is the nature of 
bureaucracy. We believe that there are things GA could be doing that 
would minimize the problems, however, not the least of which is insuring 
an ample supply of extra ballots to send to delegates and branches. We 
also recommend including a notice in the ballot instructions encouraging 
members to check with their Wobbly friends to make sure they received a 
ballot, and if not, to contact their delegate, branch or GA as soon as 
possible. Sending special notices to delegates and to branches announcing 
when ballots are mailed, perhaps with a form to request more ballots, 
might also help.

That 20 fellow workers received and mailed ballots on time despite not 
getting ballots in the mail is encouraging. We believe that the role of 
branches & delegates in providing & vouching ballots is crucial to 
insuring that all Wobblies eligible to vote have the chance, especially 
for those joining or rejoining after ballots are mailed out from GA. We 
find it evident that the more regularly delegates file their reports, the 
more likely that GA will have the information it needs to mail ballots 
directly.

Further, we recommend that branch delegates have regular monthly meetings 
before the 10th of each month to turn in paperwork and dues to the branch 
treasurer. This can also be a good time to discuss local organizing and 
unionwide issues. This strategy has worked in Santa Cruz for over a year 
in helping maintain compliance with constitutional requirements.

Finally, with all this taken into account, we have a reasonable certainty 
that the basic integrity of our democratic process was preserved in this 
referendum, and that its results (still unknown to us) will reflect the 
will of the majority of our membership. Tomorrow, we will proceed to 
separate the ballots from their vouchers, and tally the results of the 
Summer '94 IWW Referendum.

Signed and Affirmed this 16th day of July, 1994,
The Ballot Committee

Franklin Devore, x323303, I.U. 540
Crys-Vad Hyphus, x342281, I.U. 630
Deke Motif Nihilson, x341697, I.U. 570

 
