Thursday, May 09, 2013
Kathie Bracy to Gary Russell, May 8, 2013
Hi Gary --
We missed you today at Franklin Co. Retired Teachers. Your "sub" did a
credible job, but she ducked out quickly when she was finished, without giving
us an opportunity to ask questions (she said to call STRS if we had questions),
so I decided to e-mail you instead for some answers.
My questions have to do with the 2013 STRS board election, which, as you
know, ended just two days ago.
In both the 2009 and the 2013 elections, there were four retirees running
for two seats on the STRS Retirement Board. In 2009 it said on the ballot
"Select up to two candidates", but this year
the wording was changed to a command,
"Select Two Candidates". (Also,
Mike Nehf's letter that was sent with the ballots said specifically
"vote for two candidates"!) This confused many retirees,
causing them to vote for two candidates when
they had originally planned to vote for one
(called single-shot voting, a fair and square voting approach)
because they were tricked into thinking it was a requirement in order for
their vote to count.
(1) My question: Why was the wording
changed?
For people voting online this year, again those who wished to vote for ONE
candidate found themselves forced to reject a second, pop-up ballot before
their FIRST vote was accepted!
(2) My question: What was the reason for this second
pop-up ballot?
When you go into a voting booth to vote for president of the United States
or whatever, you are NEVER given a second option like
this. Why did STRS require it? Are retirees being patronized, or what?
More questions:
(3) If online voters in the STRS board election were given such an
option, then why wasn't a second ballot mailed to every retiree who sent
their original one in with only ONE vote?
(4) Why weren't they given a second chance as the
online voters were?
I would appreciate some answers to my questions, which, as you are
aware, are legitimate. Thank you for your time.
Kathie Bracy
STRS Retiree
<< Home