Guest Editorial

The Slippery Slope of Control
Douglas Myers, 1:270/720
douglas.myers@k12.ftn.org

Mike O'Conner, Region 12 Coordinator, is possibly one of the most respected coordinators in Fidonet. He was widely perceived as a critic of "control" politics when he allowed Region 10 "refugee" nodes to join Region 12 rather than put up with the control politics which were at issue in Region 10 at the time. It's ironic that today he faces the criticism of his own region over a control issue.

MIke is under fire for not accurately reporting his region's choice of candidate in the Z1C election. During this last week in the Z1C election process, Net Coordinators polled their nets to determine the sysops' choice for Z1C. This information was to be relayed to the RC who would then vote in accordance with his region's wishes in the closed election.

Region 12's choice for Z1C was me, followed by David Moufarrege. MIke, however, waited until most of the RC votes were in and took note that I didn't have sufficient support to win the election, and that David was the only candidate who could win on the first ballot. So he cast the deciding vote for David.

Ross Cassell, Election Coordinator, responded to a netmail protest from Region 12. In this response, Ross ruled that Mike's vote would not be overturned. Though he conceded that Mike was answerable to his region for his actions, he pointed out that the elections rules did not have a provision for forcing an RC to vote in accordance with his region's wishes. He also pointed out that a reversal of this vote was unlikely to produce a different winner.

Under Ross' scenario, had Mike actually reported the R12 vote accurately, it would have forced a decision by Bob Satti to break the tie for second place between Dallas Hinton and me, and then a runoff between David and the survivor in second place. Ross feels that David would have picked up one of the votes from the regions whose candidate was eliminated, thus giving him the majority he needed on the second round.

As a Region 13 sysop, I'll certainly have no say in the upcoming Region 12 RC election... and I certainly have no authority over the Z1C Election Coordinator. However, as an "aggrieved party," I'll claim my traditional Fidonet right to add my two cents to the discussion :)

Strangely, I've got no anger towards Mike O'Conner. All he took which may have been mine is a bit of fleeting "score." I believe that I'd have needed to carry at least one other region which went to David in order to mount a meaningful second round challenge. I almost sympathize with Mike... he was placed in an untenable position. The RCs were concerned about the consequences of a direct sysop election and retained their traditional control over the final results. Though they made a pledge to represent the will of their regions, is it so surprising that one of their rank yielded to the temptation of control at the last moment?

Nor do I have a quarrel with the election coordinator. It was clear from the start that the RCs would have ultimate control over the final selection of the Z1C, and I doubt that the vote could or should be overturned now.

I would argue instead that the RCs learn from this experience and apply it to the next election. Consider that the time has come for a direct count of the sysops' vote. Consider that the expected pandemonium and degeneration of the election process during the period when sysop voting was happening never materialized. Consider that the most significant breach of the election process, though it may have been well-meant, came from among your number.

Consider that the representative method of voting had an unintended (and, as yet, unanalyzed) consequence: that some of the most interested and qualified sysops did not vote in this election. I'm referring mostly to the net coordinators who mostly seemed to suppress their own voice in favor of shepherding their net's vote. It seemed to me that most of the nets where detailed information was supplied were small nets, three and four nodes... so these net coordinators may have been as much as 25% of the eligible voters. I don't know if NCs counted themselves into the voting tally they reported, but I suspect that NCs suppressed their own vote when it would have overturned the results from the rest of their nodes. I have no way of proving this and I doubt that it materially affected the actual election results in the current election... but it can't be good to have as much as 25% of the electorate involved in the mechanics of the election.

Finally, my condolences to David Moufarrege. You won this election convincingly, you ran a clean campaign, and you deserve to assume the Z1C position without the stigma which this election blemish will attach to you. It's unfair and deplorable, but some will use this to question the legitimacy of your election... to deny you your mandate. Some will forget, or choose to ignore, that you actually were the choice of the sysops in this election. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind them.

Let's all not forget that this is the closest which Zone 1 has ever come to a direct sysop election for Z1C. Though it may not have been perfect, the election was a success in that the sysops of Zone 1 had a real voice in the ZC selection.