Comments for Lazy Mountain Community Council http://lazymountaincc.org Website for the Community Council of Lazy Mountain, Alaska Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:07:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on SPUD – Special Use District by Lazy Mountain Community Council | Website for the Community Council of Lazy Mountain, Alaska » SpUD Public Review Draft Available http://lazymountaincc.org/info/spud-special-use-district/comment-page-1/#comment-2026 Lazy Mountain Community Council | Website for the Community Council of Lazy Mountain, Alaska » SpUD Public Review Draft Available Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:07:58 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?page_id=25#comment-2026 [...] For more information on the SpUD and corresponding process, visit the SpUD page here. [...] [...] For more information on the SpUD and corresponding process, visit the SpUD page here. [...]

]]> Comment on Bylaws by Lazy Mountain Community Council | Website for the Community Council of Lazy Mountain, Alaska » LMCC Bylaws edited with minor formatting changes http://lazymountaincc.org/about/bylaws/comment-page-1/#comment-1592 Lazy Mountain Community Council | Website for the Community Council of Lazy Mountain, Alaska » LMCC Bylaws edited with minor formatting changes Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:48:26 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?page_id=121#comment-1592 [...] — Webmaster @ 6:48 pm — Comments (0) The LMCC Bylaws, available for view at the Bylaws page to the left, have just been updated with some minor formatting changes to make them easier to [...] [...] — Webmaster @ 6:48 pm — Comments (0) The LMCC Bylaws, available for view at the Bylaws page to the left, have just been updated with some minor formatting changes to make them easier to [...]

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Jim Sykes http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-1050 Jim Sykes Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:07:25 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-1050 There are numerous examples of absentee ballots that do not contain the names of all candidates, or that may contain names of candidates that are not qualified. In both the Alaska primary and general elections special absentee ballots are mailed to outlying rural Alaska locations that have requested them as well as overseas military. In the case of the primary often some candidates withdraw so such an absentee voter might cast a vote for an unqualified candidate. In the general, there are sometimes court challenges to get ballot access for petition candidates that are usually not resolved before those absentee ballots are sent out. So voters would not have a complete list. The most on point comparison with LMCC is a write-in candidate. They might declare between the official deadline and the day of the election--similar to candidates who might declare after the September LMCC meeting or be nominated from the floor at the Annual meeting in October. As with state ballots, LMCC provided four lines for write-in candidates. Bottom line is that the absentee ballot process for a community council is complicated and people often have questions about it--regardless of how well it is done. Bottom line is that the 2009 annual meeting ballot was done in complete compliance with the bylaws and election procedures that the state follows. Alaska Statutues Title 15 (AS 15.20. 082) is the source of information on the special absentee ballots mentioned above. Jim Sykes There are numerous examples of absentee ballots that do not contain the names of all candidates, or that may contain names of candidates that are not qualified. In both the Alaska primary and general elections special absentee ballots are mailed to outlying rural Alaska locations that have requested them as well as overseas military. In the case of the primary often some candidates withdraw so such an absentee voter might cast a vote for an unqualified candidate. In the general, there are sometimes court challenges to get ballot access for petition candidates that are usually not resolved before those absentee ballots are sent out. So voters would not have a complete list. The most on point comparison with LMCC is a write-in candidate. They might declare between the official deadline and the day of the election–similar to candidates who might declare after the September LMCC meeting or be nominated from the floor at the Annual meeting in October. As with state ballots, LMCC provided four lines for write-in candidates. Bottom line is that the absentee ballot process for a community council is complicated and people often have questions about it–regardless of how well it is done.

Bottom line is that the 2009 annual meeting ballot was done in complete compliance with the bylaws and election procedures that the state follows. Alaska Statutues Title 15 (AS 15.20. 082) is the source of information on the special absentee ballots mentioned above.

Jim Sykes

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Michael Miller http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-1001 Michael Miller Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:09:52 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-1001 Mr Wood, Thank you for taking the time out of your day to contact the Division of Elections. From what you have written, you seem to have a concern that incumbents on the Community Council Board have intentionally arranged absentee ballots to, either in the ballots implementation or by their very existence, tilt the vote in a way that they desired. If by the very existence of the absentee vote, then I would like to remind you that, as I wrote above, absentee ballots are currently <i>required</i> by the bylaws as you can read for yourself in Article 5, Voting: <i>Absentee ballots will be provided by LMCC secretary prior to the meeting when requested by residents of the Lazy Mountain area for matters that come before the council which require a vote. </i> Absentee ballots were requested before the meeting, and therefore, they had to be provided. If, however, you feel that the ballots are flawed by how they are implemented, I would refer you again to the procedure I outlined in my previous reply to you, and inquire where you feel improper steps were taken. Your suggestion that <i>"Seems to me, that the absentee ballots could have been corrected and provided those wanting to vote absentee."</i> isn't something I can agree with, considering the fact that all new nominees outside of the incumbents were appointed during the course of the meeting. As such, any modifications to the ballots would have had to be provided after the meeting itself was completed, a proposition that is fraught with problems such as 1) People could go home and vote in specific ways based on the outcome of the general meeting, perhaps voting differently, or for a different candidate to upset the numbers. 2) Someone can attempt to influence others based on the outcome of the meeting 3) Since no ballot could really be considered valid until the meeting was over with, there would be little reason to send out the ballots until after the election, at which point the incumbents would have far more reason to try and influence the election. If you are concerned with transparency and less potential for inappropriate behavior, then accepting votes after the date of the election is far more likely to cause problems than the reverse; which is precisely why the Federal government, and state governments, all abide by the same rule - if your ballot is not postmarked by 8:00PM of the election day, it is not counted. Also, it is something of a disservice to other people on the mountain to intimate that those who voted absentee are less informed - this implies that they have not, in fact, attended more meetings and been more informed than those who only arrived for that one. Furthermore, to believe that absentee ballots could only have worked in the favor of the incumbents is to assume that everyone who requested a ballot was already satisfied with said incumbents, and had no intention of writing in another candidate, when there is no actual reason to believe that is the case. And finally, if they were already satisfied enough with the incumbent to vote for him or her again, it seems somewhat unlikely that they would then have been strongly compelled to vote for an alternative candidate. However, if your only concern is that they were uninformed in the sense that they would not have known of the candidate available, then by the same token, those who voted at the general meeting would have been uninformed of anyone candidate that had been provided by write-in. What then? Absentee voting has a specific set of rules that have been worked out over quite a period of time to prevent confusion, and minimize fraud. The board followed those rules as close as humanely possible, rules that are employed throughout the country and the world. That these rules are not perfect, and may be in need in revision, is a perfectly valid subject for discussion. I, for one, agree that they need to be re-addressed. However, it was not feasible to do this in any way prior to the current election, which is why, as I have demonstrated, the board did the best they could. While you state that those who voted with an absentee ballot were disenfranchised, what, I wonder, would have been their reaction if the board had denied them the ballot they specifically requested, and the board was obligated to provide? If you feel differently, I would be interested in knowing the reasons why. As for someone's personal opinions of your yard, that is none of my, or anyone else's, concern. And while I agree that people drive by your house too quickly, and that Soviet Union block informants are not to be emulated, I don't exactly see how they are pertinent to a discussion about absentee ballots and voting procedures. If I have misunderstood any of your positions, or am unclear myself, I apologize and hope you will let me know. Respectfully, Michael Miller Mr Wood,

Thank you for taking the time out of your day to contact the Division of Elections.
From what you have written, you seem to have a concern that incumbents on the Community Council Board have intentionally arranged absentee ballots to, either in the ballots implementation or by their very existence, tilt the vote in a way that they desired.

If by the very existence of the absentee vote, then I would like to remind you that, as I wrote above, absentee ballots are currently required by the bylaws as you can read for yourself in Article 5, Voting:

Absentee ballots will be provided by LMCC secretary prior to the meeting when requested by residents of the Lazy Mountain area for matters that come before the council which require a vote. 

Absentee ballots were requested before the meeting, and therefore, they had to be provided.

If, however, you feel that the ballots are flawed by how they are implemented, I would refer you again to the procedure I outlined in my previous reply to you, and inquire where you feel improper steps were taken. Your suggestion that

“Seems to me, that the absentee ballots could have been corrected and provided those wanting to vote absentee.”

isn’t something I can agree with, considering the fact that all new nominees outside of the incumbents were appointed during the course of the meeting. As such, any modifications to the ballots would have had to be provided after the meeting itself was completed, a proposition that is fraught with problems such as
1) People could go home and vote in specific ways based on the outcome of the general meeting, perhaps voting differently, or for a different candidate to upset the numbers.
2) Someone can attempt to influence others based on the outcome of the meeting
3) Since no ballot could really be considered valid until the meeting was over with, there would be little reason to send out the ballots until after the election, at which point the incumbents would have far more reason to try and influence the election.

If you are concerned with transparency and less potential for inappropriate behavior, then accepting votes after the date of the election is far more likely to cause problems than the reverse; which is precisely why the Federal government, and state governments, all abide by the same rule – if your ballot is not postmarked by 8:00PM of the election day, it is not counted.

Also, it is something of a disservice to other people on the mountain to intimate that those who voted absentee are less informed – this implies that they have not, in fact, attended more meetings and been more informed than those who only arrived for that one. Furthermore, to believe that absentee ballots could only have worked in the favor of the incumbents is to assume that everyone who requested a ballot was already satisfied with said incumbents, and had no intention of writing in another candidate, when there is no actual reason to believe that is the case. And finally, if they were already satisfied enough with the incumbent to vote for him or her again, it seems somewhat unlikely that they would then have been strongly compelled to vote for an alternative candidate.

However, if your only concern is that they were uninformed in the sense that they would not have known of the candidate available, then by the same token, those who voted at the general meeting would have been uninformed of anyone candidate that had been provided by write-in. What then?

Absentee voting has a specific set of rules that have been worked out over quite a period of time to prevent confusion, and minimize fraud. The board followed those rules as close as humanely possible, rules that are employed throughout the country and the world.

That these rules are not perfect, and may be in need in revision, is a perfectly valid subject for discussion. I, for one, agree that they need to be re-addressed. However, it was not feasible to do this in any way prior to the current election, which is why, as I have demonstrated, the board did the best they could. While you state that those who voted with an absentee ballot were disenfranchised, what, I wonder, would have been their reaction if the board had denied them the ballot they specifically requested, and the board was obligated to provide?
If you feel differently, I would be interested in knowing the reasons why.

As for someone’s personal opinions of your yard, that is none of my, or anyone else’s, concern. And while I agree that people drive by your house too quickly, and that Soviet Union block informants are not to be emulated, I don’t exactly see how they are pertinent to a discussion about absentee ballots and voting procedures.

If I have misunderstood any of your positions, or am unclear myself, I apologize and hope you will let me know.

Respectfully,

Michael Miller

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Larry Wood http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-1000 Larry Wood Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:36 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-1000 I contacted the Div. of Elections. I asked "what would the State do about an absentee ballot that had a mistake regarding a candidate, such as leaving a name off?" The answer was that if the mistake were discovered BEFORE the election occurred and there as sufficient time, a corrected ballot would be issued." Seems to me, that the absentee ballots could have been corrected and provided those wanting to vote absentee. I for one want to see the nominating provision regarding the nominating committee changed to in personam at the Annual Meeting declaration of candidacy. That would elminate the unintended consequences of the current situation where there are enough absentee ballots out to potentially influence the outcome of one or more of the positions open. I contacted the Div. of Elections. I asked “what would the State do about an absentee ballot that had a mistake regarding a candidate, such as leaving a name off?”
The answer was that if the mistake were discovered BEFORE the election occurred and there as sufficient time, a corrected ballot would be issued.”
Seems to me, that the absentee ballots could have been corrected and provided those wanting to vote absentee.
I for one want to see the nominating provision regarding the nominating committee changed to in personam at the Annual Meeting declaration of candidacy. That would elminate the unintended consequences of the current situation where there are enough absentee ballots out to potentially influence the outcome of one or more of the positions open.

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Larry Wood http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-997 Larry Wood Sat, 10 Oct 2009 20:47:25 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-997 The problem was, Mr. Miller, that nominations were taken from the floor. The people disfranchised in this vote are the 21 who voted with an inaccurate abentee ballot. They were not allowed to make an informed decision. I know that the incumbents were probably counting on a good part of those 21 votes to offset any opposition to their continuing in office. Me, I like the way the vote turned out at the meeting. BTW, one of our so called neighbors at the meeting just chewed my butt for my concern and told me that she doesn't like how my yard looks. Fuirther, she was angry so many showed at the annual meeting, when so many had not participated in the regular monthly meetings--including me. I did get a big kick out of her comment regarding my yard, especially since I have never been to her yard or yours, for that matter. My concern for my neighbor's yard stops at my driveway and property line. However, Wolverine is entirely on my side of the section line eliminating a good 15-20 feet of our property from our use. However, that's ok, right? I suggest folks with the arrogance to judge their neighbor's and who believe their sensibilities are offended by what they see do as the Supreme Court recommended, look the other way. There is nothing in the Constitution that bars one from being offended. Me, I dislike socialism and the attitude of 'do as I say or else' that comes with it. Which is exactly what Helen presented in her comments--whether she intended it that way or not. I realize that one can hide behind the borough and whine over one's sensibilities being offended based upon a perception. I still cannot figure out how such rises to the level of protection for the whining party as that of a victim of rape or a minor offender with respect to the complaintent? The compaintent's identity is protected. How absurd. Gee, socialism, or actually, the neighborhood block informant in the old Soviet Union. No opportunity to face one's accuser. Is that what this CC wants to institute? To tell us what we WILL do or ELSE? I would think good neighbors would be more concerned about the 60+ in a 45 zone that those who live beyond us on Wolverine blast by at as they tear down the road in a big hurry to go nowhere. Like that 2 sec. they save means anything. There are kids who live here and across on Goa Way and down towards Clark. Where is the concern for their safety when you all blow by at 60+? I tried to point out at the meeting to Jim Sykes that taking into consideration the board votes in the 21 absentee ballots, given the changes, was an unfair vote. Obviously, there needs to be a redressing of the bylaws regarding that issue. I am willing to help. I have been gone off and on over the last 3 years, working out of State and out of the country. My bad for not participating. That will change, as my schedule permits. Unfortunately,21 people are going to make an uninformed decision that will impact the outcome of the board election. The only beneficiary there is the sitting board. I will check into the State absentee ballot issue Monday--10/12 and report back under "comments". The problem was, Mr. Miller, that nominations were taken from the floor. The people disfranchised in this vote are the 21 who voted with an inaccurate abentee ballot. They were not allowed to make an informed decision. I know that the incumbents were probably counting on a good part of those 21 votes to offset any opposition to their continuing in office.
Me, I like the way the vote turned out at the meeting.
BTW, one of our so called neighbors at the meeting just chewed my butt for my concern and told me that she doesn’t like how my yard looks. Fuirther, she was angry so many showed at the annual meeting, when so many had not participated in the regular monthly meetings–including me.
I did get a big kick out of her comment regarding my yard, especially since I have never been to her yard or yours, for that matter. My concern for my neighbor’s yard stops at my driveway and property line. However, Wolverine is entirely on my side of the section line eliminating a good 15-20 feet of our property from our use. However, that’s ok, right?
I suggest folks with the arrogance to judge their neighbor’s and who believe their sensibilities are offended by what they see do as the Supreme Court recommended, look the other way. There is nothing in the Constitution that bars one from being offended.
Me, I dislike socialism and the attitude of ‘do as I say or else’ that comes with it. Which is exactly what Helen presented in her comments–whether she intended it that way or not.
I realize that one can hide behind the borough and whine over one’s sensibilities being offended based upon a perception. I still cannot figure out how such rises to the level of protection for the whining party as that of a victim of rape or a minor offender with respect to the complaintent? The compaintent’s identity is protected. How absurd. Gee, socialism, or actually, the neighborhood block informant in the old Soviet Union. No opportunity to face one’s accuser.
Is that what this CC wants to institute? To tell us what we WILL do or ELSE?
I would think good neighbors would be more concerned about the 60+ in a 45 zone that those who live beyond us on Wolverine blast by at as they tear down the road in a big hurry to go nowhere. Like that 2 sec. they save means anything. There are kids who live here and across on Goa Way and down towards Clark. Where is the concern for their safety when you all blow by at 60+?
I tried to point out at the meeting to Jim Sykes that taking into consideration the board votes in the 21 absentee ballots, given the changes, was an unfair vote.
Obviously, there needs to be a redressing of the bylaws regarding that issue.
I am willing to help.
I have been gone off and on over the last 3 years, working out of State and out of the country. My bad for not participating. That will change, as my schedule permits.
Unfortunately,21 people are going to make an uninformed decision that will impact the outcome of the board election. The only beneficiary there is the sitting board.
I will check into the State absentee ballot issue Monday–10/12 and report back under “comments”.

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Michael Miller http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-993 Michael Miller Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:39:49 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-993 Your point about absentee voting highlights a problem in the existing bylaws.  Which, it should be noted, can only be changed at the annual meeting. The board discussed this in preparing the ballot since the bylaws do require an absentee ballot prior to nominations from the floor at the annual meeting.  Four candidates had put forth their names at the September meeting.  Additional nominations were requested and there were none. People were invited to contact the nominating committee which was established according to the bylaws.  No new names came in by the time the ballot was prepared--timing specified by the bylaws. Since we allow nominations from the floor at the annual meeting, it's not possible to create an absentee ballot that would contain those names.  Some years there are more slots to fill than candidates.  After considering the requirements of the bylaws the board proceeded unanimously in good faith with this procedure. This happens with some absentee ballots in  state elections as well.    It's reasonable that the current bylaw provisions on absentee voting should be rethought. But if the board was going to abide by the bylaws of the community council, they had no other choice that I can see. Your point about absentee voting highlights a problem in the existing bylaws.  Which, it should be noted, can only be changed at the annual meeting.
The board discussed this in preparing the ballot since the bylaws do require an absentee ballot prior to nominations from the floor at the annual meeting.  Four candidates had put forth their names at the September meeting.  Additional nominations were requested and there were none. People were invited to contact the nominating committee which was established according to the bylaws.  No new names came in by the time the ballot was prepared–timing specified by the bylaws. Since we allow nominations from the floor at the annual meeting, it’s not possible to create an absentee ballot that would contain those names.  Some years there are more slots to fill than candidates.  After considering the requirements of the bylaws the board proceeded unanimously in good faith with this procedure.
This happens with some absentee ballots in  state elections as well.   
It’s reasonable that the current bylaw provisions on absentee voting should be rethought. But if the board was going to abide by the bylaws of the community council, they had no other choice that I can see.

]]> Comment on SPUD committee members approved by Larry Wood http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/04/11/spud-committee-members-approved/comment-page-1/#comment-988 Larry Wood Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:23:39 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=54#comment-988 Property rights need to be held sacro sanct. This body has no right to interfere with an indivdual's right to use their property as they see fit, so long as that use does not impact their neighbors in a substantive manner--and I don't mean impression or perception. Property rights need to be held sacro sanct. This body has no right to interfere with an indivdual’s right to use their property as they see fit, so long as that use does not impact their neighbors in a substantive manner–and I don’t mean impression or perception.

]]> Comment on Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 by Larry Wood http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/agenda-and-notes-for-annual-meeting-101209/comment-page-1/#comment-987 Larry Wood Fri, 09 Oct 2009 05:20:13 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=229#comment-987 1. All board position should be voted on in personam, not by absentee. The nomination and vote for board members at the 10.8 annual meeting is effectively compromised by the absentee process. I believe the vote should be thrown out and another meeting held for the purpose of electing a new board. I may seek a court's redress regarding this issue. My vote was rendered moot by the absentee scheme. Otherwise, nominations should have been closed as of the printing of the absentee ballot. 1. All board position should be voted on in personam, not by absentee. The nomination and vote for board members at the 10.8 annual meeting is effectively compromised by the absentee process. I believe the vote should be thrown out and another meeting held for the purpose of electing a new board. I may seek a court’s redress regarding this issue. My vote was rendered moot by the absentee scheme. Otherwise, nominations should have been closed as of the printing of the absentee ballot.

]]> Comment on Summary of George Rauscher’s Presentation at LMCC’s 8/12/09 meeting. by lazymountaincc.org | Website for lmcc » Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 http://lazymountaincc.org/2009/09/25/summary-of-george-rauscher%e2%80%99s-presentation-at-lmcc%e2%80%99s-81209-meeting/comment-page-1/#comment-961 lazymountaincc.org | Website for lmcc » Agenda and notes for annual meeting 10/8/09 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:25:18 +0000 http://lazymountaincc.org/?p=219#comment-961 [...] George Rauscher, Sutton Community Council President, speaking about Sutton’s Revenue Sharing at LM... [...] [...] George Rauscher, Sutton Community Council President, speaking about Sutton’s Revenue Sharing at LM… [...]

]]>