Elections 102 - More of What Not to Do

In my last post; Elections 101 - What Not to Do, I took up with some issues that I found unsatisfactory.  Handling of the process of the Register of Members, suggestions Yeshivah had made around dissemination of candidate communications to voters and provision, (or lack of) due diligence materials.

I'll be honest - nothing would make me happier than to see a response to the time I spend writing, to the responses I am receiving, than to see Yeshivah take it on the chin, suck it up and get their house in order.  

When the following correspondence comes out however, sent 21 November 2016 from Yudi New to the Yeshivah community and titled Elections:  Our Processes it's an insult to the voters AND the candidates.  

I invite you to compare what's been happening over the last few days with the content of this letter, as well as to the direct quotations I'm going to provide that are extracts from a letter distributed to the YBRSL Board candidates on 17 November 2016, just 3 days earlier, from Jeremy Gold, with the subject YBRSL Nomination - next steps. 

(Excerpts from Yudi's letter are in green, from Jeremy's in blue).

1) in accordance with the constitutions and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) all members who request are given access to inspect the Register of Members and provided with a copy...(Yudi New)  In fact, as has been outlined in the previous post, Elections 101 - multiple members who requested access to inspect and copy the Register of Members were NOT given access to do so in accordance with the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).  

...You will appreciate that we have taken some precautions to protect your privacy... (Yudi New)  This is particularly disingenuous as statements go because the Register of Members as compiled contains all the email addresses of the members.  These email addresses are not required, have been included and distributed to members with, (as far as I know) no further information whatsoever as to limitations on their use that might exist... such as utilisation for commercial purposes.  

Many organisations would choose to locate this additional information, such as member email contacts on an alternate data base for exactly the reason suggested in this letter, to protect member privacy.  However  by locating this information on the Register of Members it has now become available to every member of the organisation provided with rights to inspect and copy the Register.    Clearly Yeshivah has exercised little forethought and taken few, negligible, (any?) precautions to protect member privacy.  I await to hear just what the 'precautions to protect your privacy' that have been taken are, that are being referred to in this letter.

From there, to the issue of interference with candidate communications with voters.  One can't deny that Jeremy Gold's letter to candidates is unequivocal in advising that Yeshivah requires that Yudi must approve 'anything sent'.
...If you want to send out further material via email to the YBRSL membership, we would require you to do that through us, however, as I am sure you will appreciate, anything sent will need to be approved by Yudi New.   Following approval, we would certainly arrange for an email to be sent.(Jeremy Gold)  17 November   
The follow-up from Yudi,...

2) ...We do not, however, seek to censure or censor what candidates might want to say nor which candidate might be allowed to do so. (Yudi New)  21 November

For someone with no intention to censure nor censor, an environment creating an apparatus to that end is certainly in place.  
As for transparency, it's all well and good for Yudi to send out his letter of the 21st to the community when Yeshivah can rely on the preceding letter having been seen only by candidates.

Yudi's letter of 21 November goes on to deal with matters pertaining to Due Diligence.  I am going to comment minimally here, other than to say candidates continue to request documentation to undertake a Due Diligence and 'ongoing dialogue' from the Board most certainly fails to meet any standard.  While the Board have decided that materials such as those requested would not ordinarily be provided ‘in an election of this type’, I would remind them that a due diligence process pertains NOT to the election but to the organisation.  The Yeshivah organisations are large and complex. It is exactly with these ‘type’ of organisations that a potential director would undertake an appropriate due diligence, in a timely fashion.  While it is the choice of potential directors to make, good practice would have them support these quite appropriate processes with the availability of requested materials.

As Mr New concludes in his letter of 20 November, I take my guidance from him.  He writes, 
‘I recognise that this is a new process and there is a lot of learning for all of us. I remain committed to a fair and transparent process and am confident we are achieving this. If anyone has any questions or concerns, I am more than happy to address these. Please direct them to governance@yeshivahcentre.org.’

What is going wrong here?  Primarily this attitude - the ‘this is a new process and there is a lot of learning for all of us.’  I’m tired as are many others of the suggestion that because this is the first election it doesn't matter that we don’t get it ‘quite right’.  
Not good enough.  We have legislation, we have a constitution, precedents and governance practices; not to mention plenty of individuals with capacity to provide professional assistance.

It’s all very well and good to talk about being committed to fairness and transparency, but if you are going to be responsible for walking the walk you can’t just talk the talk.  Any presumption that an abundance of fairness and transparency  is being achieved, as has been suggested, is far-fetched.  I could point you toward some of the candidates who have much to say about this themselves.

Mr New has invited questions so I’ll finish with some of my own.  I’m an alumni of Beth-Rivkah, a previous teacher and members of my family currently attend the school, but not a member of the company.  So, any members reading, please feel free to pick these up and direct them on to governance@yeshivahcentre.org
I’ld be interested to hear any answers you receive at mpinskier28@gmail.com

1. When will any member see the original Register of Members, as per conditions in the Corporations Act?  As Yeshivah says this has already occurred, can Yeshivah name such a member?
2. What are the precautions that Yeshivah have taken to protect member privacy?
3. When will candidates be provided wth documentation to undertake a due diligence?  What will be provided?
4. When will further details as to management of the elections be distributed?  For example, management of election processes at the AGM?  Further, how will candidates who drop down from criteria elections into the general pool not be favoured or have undue impact as to other candidates?  Will a separate election occur post-announcement of all criteria positions?
5. Talking transparency, I return to the question that Yeshivah continues to ignore.  Who deems themselves fit to be representing YCL and in a position to be nominating  Board appointees on behalf of a legal entity that does not yet exist?
6. When will YCL be registered?
7. How many non-voting members are there in each organisation?

As for your vote, I again advise, wait for your answers - wait for your AGM.

..marcia pinskier