Elections 103 - Australian Jewish News declares Yeshivah Elections Chaotic

It seems that our community newspaper has reached the same conclusion as many in the Yeshivah community.

For those interested in following this Blog, (apparently also the AJN), you will be aware of the commentary ( Elections 101) that in my opinion, Yeshivah has interfered inappropriately in this election process.   Yeshivah appears to be in this (chaos) space again, with Mr Yudi New now sending out an anonymous letter to the YBRSL candidates on 24 November seeking to have the candidates amend their agendas.  
It's easy to see why the AJN might be calling the elections chaotic.

A CALL FOR CONVICTION  

The anonymous letter disseminated this week by Mr New to the YBRSL candidates 'purporting' to have been written by the staff is an unimpressive piece of work, regardless of whoever the author/s of this letter are that have patched it together. 
In mainstream politics there is a particularly coarse, vulgar and ugly term for an unsigned letter of this type which I won't repeat on-line.  Why is an anonymous letter treated with this kind of contempt and disdain?  Because regardless of the excuses offered for anonymity, it is unattributable, unidentifiable and the authors are prepared to offer nothing of their own character nor commitment to their words.  An anonymous letter is  nothing more than a tool to hide behind while smearing and manipulating the reputation, agendas and resolution of others.  In this case, in the run-up to the election, a number of candidates, along with a number of staff at the school.

This is a worthless and shameful piece of work.  The gutlessness of whoever wrote this indicates a person or persons without the courage to stand by their convictions.  As names are absent, so too it makes sense to treat the words that precede them as devoid of credibility, honour and most particularly value.

Furthermore, this letter makes references to matter that if it was truly written by staff, it could not nor should not know.

So just WHO wrote this letter?   Was it 'one' number of the purported Staff?  Was it 'two' of the purported Staff?  Three?  Four?  More?  None at all?  From beginning to the end, the one series of words that identify who this letter comes from are missing...  as far as I am concerned it is written by no-one.  Certainly no-one with any credibility.

And so to something of the content of this nameless, worthless and unsavoury piece.
Among other statements, the letter goes to some length to address why candidates should amend their agendas, thereby going to the lengths of sullying the good intent and working reputations of a number of nominees for the School Board among their prospective peers. 

What is the purpose of an election if candidates are not free to express what they believe to be best intent goals and outcomes by which they wish to serve the community?  By what right does the author of this letter believe it is within his/her purview to leverage the action and intent of those choosing to engage with the school membership on issues they address using anonymity as a screen?
It's not as if there is any whistleblowing going on here...
And on what grounds does Yeshivah buy into this process???

Indicative of the quality of remarks that do the author(s) no pride are those listed below. 

If this letter, presented without evidentiary backing is not a superlative example of 'going at it' on the basis of rumours and 'shouting the loudest' it would be hard-pressed for competition.  

On this basis candidates are requested to 'remove misinformation'.  Misinformation according (again), to the definition of some nameless individual.

Perhaps it would be worth reminding this 'individual' or 'individuals' that if he or she is truly a member of staff, then he/she is an employee and it is the responsibility of the Board to prepare a strategy and agenda that they consider will serve the school best.  The gall of suggesting that as a staff they need to be 'confident that a governing body is going to support our school on a factual basis...' is in every way disrespectful and plain rude.  But I suppose you can get away with all these behaviours if you are prepared to hide behind anonymity.

The letter speaks at length about issues of workplace bullying in the schools, besmirching teachers who have been bullied in the workplace.  It notes that 'small numbers of people have alleged that they were bullied in the workplace...' and that the school has been cleared of all allegations.  

The reality is that the author, if a member of the teaching staff, as suggested in the letter,  is highly unlikely to be in a position to be aware of the bullying/intimidation of others; whether past or currently ongoing as these matters are dealt with in a highly confidential fashion.  Bullying and/or harassment complaints are often contained to a Senior Supervisor, the Principal or members of the Board - certainly complaints are not widely spread among the school community.  It is a nonsense for a letter such as this to comment on the absence of bullying in the workplace as it does.  

This letter contains assertions and allegations about matters it could not nor should not know if the author is truly a member of staff.

While on the subject of bullying, let's come at this from another direction.  Nothing would be a more typical example of bullying than a letter that denies bullying/intimidation of those who have been subject to this treatment.    Nothing would be a more typical example of bullying than a letter that uses language such as 'alleges', intimating that no bullying actually occurred, to begin with.  Take the letter as a piece all on its own.  Whoever wrote it, through lack of respect for another's experience of being bullied could be intimated to be bullying by the very language of disrespect being used.

It is a recognised factor that staff turnover, low morale and workplace stress are among symptoms or signs in bullying.  A number of candidates seek to ensure best outcomes for students by promoting a healthy workplace environment; what could be among better focus for staff and students at the the school?

To reiterate, the letter seeks to sully the name of teachers who have been bullied in the workplace and the good intent of a number of nominees. This letter dictates that sentiments of our staff'...(Still waiting for a signature - who are 'our Staff'?), on the matter of workplace bullying is quite different to those being circulated by nominees, identifies these views (regarding workplace bullying) as destructive and damaging and from there 'respectfully' (oh please) suggests that candidates amend their views.

There should be no lack of clarity that this letter is abusing candidates who express concerns as to workplace bullying within the schools.   

So, 

Target One...let's bully the candidates; pressure them among all their peers, impact how they will interact with their Board members going forward and seek to coerce them into amending their messages in front of the school community.

Target Two...let's bully the teachers, sully their reputations, further malign them and cast aspersions upon them in their interactions with candidates.

For those avowing that this is a school without bullying, this missive makes a fine example for the case of bullying existing and why candidates should certainly NOT be amending their agendas.  What a pathetic little piece of correspondence it has proven to be.

FURTHER TO ELECTION INTERFERENCE

And now, once again, (painfully) to the issue of Election Interference.
It's bad enough that an anonymous, unsourced, unattributed letter effectively attacking candidates behind the cloak of invisibility finds its way into the election process, but it's beyond shameful that the letter is distributed by the hand of Yeshivah itself.  
Yeshivah says it runs a clean election but it sends out this unmitigated piece of rubbish, this wolf dressed up in lamb's clothing and to add insult to injury, crowns it with the fine words of Mr Yudi New on the way out the door.
  

In his cover note to the candidates,  I quote... 

'...please be aware that the staff have chosen to communicate their views in this respectful manner, rather than taking steps that could be seen to be influencing the election....

Mr New has lent his   authority as the individual running the election that these are respectful views, to be treated with respect and have not been designed to influence the election.  

Nothing could be further from the truth in every regard.   

Sending out such a letter is a direct attempt to influence the process.  For Mr New to be party to this is far from acceptable.

To suggest that these are views being communicated in a 'respectful' manner, is breathtaking, (not in a good way). Further, the crux of the letter is that the author patently seeks that candidates amend their agendas - how could this possibly be interpreted as not seeking to be influencing the election? 

  

By now, everyone at Yeshivah should know better.

WHOM DO YOU WISH TO VOTE FOR?

A word as to information on voting processes authorised by the CIVL and YBRSL Boards and signed off on by Company Secretary, Nussen Ainsworth.  This information, or misinformation as the case may be, is being distributed within the Explanatory notes accompanying the Notice of the Annual General Meetings.
Reflecting one of the poor choices in conceiving these constitutions (A Vote-Less Category) and much to my own chagrin, both CIVL and YBRSL constitutions specify (Clause 20.2.d), that all candidates in the elections lose their entitlement to vote.  
What do the AGM Explanatory notes actually tell members?  I quote:
2.12 Clause 20.2 of CIVL's constitution requires that the election by Members of Board Members will take place as follows:..
     (c) Each member present (whether by proxy, attorney or representative) at the meeting will be entitled to vote for up to four (4) candidates.
    (d) Candidates will not be eligible to vote for themselves.
I draw your attention to note 2.12 (d), because NOWHERE in the Constitution does it specifically state that candidates are not eligible to vote for themselves.
Further to this, it is incorrect as listed above that 'Each member present... will be entitled to vote for up to four candidates'.  
Within the YBRSL AGM directions information that provides that each member will be entitled and able to vote for five candidates is likewise not the case.

What Clause 20.2 (d) actually states is: 
     '(d)...each  Member Present (excluding the candidates) at the annual general meeting will be entitled to vote...'

What the constitution is saying, applicable whether voting on-line or at the AGM, is that candidates have no entitlement to vote for themselves OR anyone else.
A choice has been made to present a misdirection to the entire community as to the intent of the Clause relevant to voting entitlements. How do I know this?  Because Mr Yudi New called me and asked me to identify this clause number for him, the one that related to candidates not being able to vote.  He was clearly aware as to what the constitution stated however this document does NOT reflect that content.

Furthermore - if Yeshivah followed their own system as outlined in these notes, candidates would still receive some number of ballots.  Presumably Yeshivah is running a democratic, secret ballot.  How exactly, if they were allocating votes to candidates, as they suggest they are doing above, would they ensure that those votes were not directed toward the candidate??? 
Either Yeshivah is working in line with the constitution, candidates receive no ballots and no votes and a secret ballot is occurring with the results of no-one's votes or being known;   OR, candidates would receive ballots as per the Yeshivah system noted above which would (??) be in some way marked to identify them or prevent candidates from voting for themselves.  So much for presumption of a secret ballot. 

ANOTHER good reason NOT to vote on line, but to wait for explanation for the entire community and vote at the AGM.

THE DIFFICULTIES ON HOW YOU VOTE

The Proxy

There have been no shortage of queries responding to documentation from Yeshivah,  seeking further information regarding the use of proxy votes.  In short, - there is not a compulsion for the use of an attorney at all to be involved.  Ask a friend or family member (who is not an attorney) to be your proxy if required and you are unlikely to need legal authorisation.

Yeshivah has issued a form that has no areas to note whether the proxy would be an open, directed or most particularly an ongoing proxy as is commonly done when proxy forms are issued.  While many Companies could be relied on to accept Proxy Forms with amendments provided and signed with these indication, under the current circumstances at Yeshivah, I would strongly advise members to contact he Company Secretary of both YBRSL and CIVL, Mr Nussen Ainsworth on this matter as soon as possible and seek a confirmation as to whether Yeshivah companies will/will not accept should the proxy forms be amended by the member to reference this information.

Alternatively, members should request that the Yeshivah companies produce a complete and appropriate Proxy form for member use.

IN CONCLUSION

Yeshivah chose to be active in the distribution of an inappropriate, anonymous letter, regardless from whom it came.  

In the words of Mr New, which suggested that these communications of anonymous bodies are appropriate, respectful and to be respected, it would be interesting to understand how he reached these conclusions.  
Mine would have been that an anonymous letter of this type would have been best filed in the trash.

Time at Yeshivah could have been far better spent seeing closer attention paid to correct information being provided to members within their AGM notes - including fuller Proxy Forms.
Unfortunately, too many Yeshivah Centre  individuals have their heads turned in the wrong directions and their fingers far too deep in pots where they stick in sites they do not belong.
This speaks further to an inherent dismay as to how this election process is playing out day by day.

Something is EXTREMELY ugly in Denmark - or perhaps Hotham Street.

...marcia pinskier (as always)