What's Going on at MOFIB?

[mpedersen]

Got this mass mailing at 5:30 PM central time:

An email went out this afternoon that contained a typo on the email address to which nominations should be sent.

The correct address is [email protected] NOT [email protected]

Please send all nominations to [email protected]

I apologize for this error on my part.

Thanks and vote well!

Mark Vera

And when I tested it (5:30 as well) IT AGAIN BOUNCED BACK!

EDIT - came back and editted rather than posting another followup.

Only moments ago did I realize why it failed. For a SECOND TIME, the BOD has sent out an INCORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS to the members - note that Mr. Vera's email reads - elections@marinebreeders.org

I have sent off a test now, at 8:20 PM or so, to [email protected], and it has not bounced back. So clearly if you can "figure out" the email they actually set up, it'll work. Sadly, they still have not emailed out the correct email address to the members at this time.

It is sad that this is the level of ineptitude being demonstrated...first we'll send the wrong email. Then, lets send another email without even testing to see that it works before we publicize it.

This BOD's way of doing things fits a classic pattern that is familiar to everyone - "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later".

And they have still failed to provide the membership with the correct email for nominations...and as of tomorrow there will be one less day for poeple to make their nominations. WHAT A SHAM!

 

[mpedersen]

I can't resist posting this followup - Mark Vera copped to the mistake and said:

I am really struggling with this new software. That was supposed to be a test for the BOD to see. Sorry guys. I'll have this fixed shortly. As I said here before I am not a programmer.....I'm going to trust the emailing to Will and step back now. Please look for a new email with the correct information.

Ok, seriously. Blame the software. Blame not being a programmer. Because clearly, without good software and a programming background you can't type an email address and spell it correctly. Seriously. This is what MOFIB's membership is being subjected too. What next? Blame the election results on solar eruptions?

 

[mpedersen]

At this point, well, hate to say it, but NOTHING should surprise us anymore. A rather curious tidbit to end my evening with - apparently, the board is soliciting random members to join an "elections" committee. Question - wouldn't it be "common sense" to have already FORMED the committee before you start the actual PROCESS of elections?

 

[mpedersen]

Once again, MOFIB will be springing another surprise on the voting members. Apparently, this election will not be conducted in anything reminiscent of a standard "vote for your top 4" choices to fill the board seats. No, members will be subjected to a system invariably foreign to most of them, a system called Condorcet Elections.

The software being used apparently is http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html - it took some digging to find it online and in fact, I never did, a fellow MOFIB member sent it along. I had found something totally different. This scenario requires users to rank all the choices, and tabulates votes based on general consensus as determined by one of 4 different rule sets / algorithms. Basically, if you don't know how to vote, there is actually a way for a voter to get their vote nullified by the system. There are ways in which a member, elected based purely on the number of "votes", wouldn't actually be elected, because this system doesn't have VOTES, it has "preferences". So another way of thinking it, the elected party might not actually get elected despite having more votes. It doesn't stop there, because going back to those 4 rules, the Board could select whichever one is most favorable when it calls the election.

The board will put this out there as 'tamper proof" because it's hosted on Cornell's servers, but what the Board will fail to acknowledge is that the BOARD ITSELF still controls the nominations and who votes. It is very easy for the board to stuff the voting register with as many fictitious voters as it likes, and there is no way for the public to verify that. The board keeps changing the rules of who is a valid voter in such a way that no one from the outside could verify the actual number of voters...we've been told the current rules affect a very small number of voters, yet in the meeting minutes, at one point we read 100 or so member could vote, or possibly 300. But now we're been told only a small number can't vote (lets not forget, there are 1600 members of MOFIB at this time). MOFIB never had a vote with over 100 votes anyways, so I doubt we'll see anything close to even 300 for the turnout. But even if we do, we will not know if those are real votes or fake votes. What if we actually get 500+ members to vote? Who do we believe then? The minutes that put the number at 300 something, or Mark Vera who says most members can vote (but has failed to even send out the correct email address for nominations to all members 24 hours into the short window they've promoted). We still have members who believe they are qualified to nominate and vote who haven't received notifications, nor have their concerns been addressed by the BOD! In other words, the BOD really doesn't care about the members or their rights one bit. All they care about is ramming this elections process through, regardless of bylaws, laws, or even common sense. We saw it happen before, and my protest over sloppy work "earned me the boot" in the sitting BOD's eyes. Now that I'm not there to stop them, they will do whatever the feel like, including taking the member's rights away at every turn. The BOD seems only interested in self preservation top to bottom....if it doesn't benefit the BOD, they're not doing it. If it disadvantages the members in any way, they seem ALL FOR IT.

It is sad, no longer surprising, but just sad, that Mark Vera himself seems to have been unable to keep his hands clean in all of this, and he's been sucked into the mess that is the current BOD. He's been responsible for too many screw ups at this point, and has more often than not voted in kind with the rest of the board to enact policies that confuse and disenfranchise the members.

 

[mpedersen]

NEWS FLASH - apparently someone utilizing the official MOFIB user acocunt has posted a list of "members qualified to be on the board". That list, out of all 1600 members, is only 75 members long. Review it or yourself here - http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/view ... 264&t=5218

I've preserved it below in case it is adjusted in the future:

aantreklik_jared
acroporas
amashun
Amie
Antony P.M.
aomont
aquagrrl
armagedon48
bbranham3
bobz
chaz
Chelsey
clownfish152089
Clownfish75
Colby
damer
David M
Domboski
DrHsu
DThom
espenlg
FB
Fishboy42
fishtal
FMarini
FuEl
Greshamh
hsiehlung
Hunts25
Iris
jgs240
joefrith
jski711
KathyL
KMB
lance
leanne
LethargicCoder
mhender
mikegreen
Miles
Morgman
mpedersen
Mr_Matthew_L
mrbailey
mrblue
NemoFan
NicoleCastle
PaulG
Peter Schmiedel
Rallim
rkelman
sanjay
SantaMonica
sazmo
ScooterTDI
simple
soonerseahorse
spawner
spk
Spracklcat
sunny d polyp
Surfzone
Tabatha
tcmfish
TheChemist
timthetoolman
Umm, fish?
vaporize
wildponi
Witt
Woodstock
Zaita
Zeptonium
Zooid

There is no explanation of where this list came from, how it was generated etc. Furthermore, it is alarming because of the following implication - according to the revised bylaws currently online, here is the following qualification - Article V, section 1., states:

Any "Voting Member" of MOFIB in good standing may become a Director of MOFIB.

The direct implication of this list is that this list happens to also be the 75 members who are now considered "voting members", because only voting members are eligible to be on the board. This is incredibly alarming given that the board's current minutes suggest that 300+ members are "Voting members" in their eyes. Posted here and revised after the fact, today, the minutes currently read:

MV makes the motion that voting member shall be defined for the purposes of this election as a member who registered at least 60 days ago and has made at least two posts in breeding forums in the last year. LM rejects this and asks for 90 days (currently 387 members).

The official vote, however, is that people should have 2 breeding posts in the past 12 months...assuredly that number must be higher than the 387 at 90 days.

So how the heck did MOFIB's voting membership find itself slashed from 1600, to 387, to 119, to now only 75 MEMBERS?!

 

[chris&barb]

I was just told that I'm not eligible because i needed to post two post's in the last year that are of "significance"

I have a post from June 11 2008 thats of significance to me, and one a little bit after that that is definitely significant by any standard.

Now i cant log on?

 

[mpedersen]

I let 'em have it on your post Chris&Barb. That's above and beyond wrong. First, I want to quote our illustrious "webmonkey" Acroporas who suddenly now speaks for the board and makes official proclamations as to who can vote:

To be eligible to vote you must have made two posts posts of significance in the breeding forms in the last 12 months.

You have only posted once in the last year, so no you are not going to be eligible to vote.

This is now a FOURTH OR FIFTH variation on the rules of "who can vote". There is now another new concept, "POSTS OF SIGNIFICANCE"? Nowhere is this included ANYWHERE in the bylaws, minutes, or anything. But I suspect if Will is quoting it, then it is probably something that is being applied.

I still don't know how the narrowed it down to 75 members out of 1600 as I outlined above, but clearly based on official communications, Chris&Barb are legimite, eligble voters. My response which will certainly be removed:

Will, first, since when does a web site administrator speak for the Board?

Second, that is not the qualification that was communicated to the members. The qualifications in the OFFICIAL BOD EMAIL READ:

• A registered member 90 days prior to date of this announcement

• A Member in good standing. (ie. no warnings or on read-only access)

• A Member with at least 2 posts in breeding related forums.

By all accounts, anyone can check that chris&barb were registered more than 90 days ago. They have no read only access. And this member certainly has "at least 2 posts in breeding related forums".

Clearly the board will say "oops, our bad, those 'qualifications'" aren't right and will point to the meeting minutes or something. But it appears another new qualification has been added too...not just two posts, but two "posts of significance"? WTF is a "post of significance"?

But wait, the emails in the email weren't right in the official communications either. TWICE. The correct email has NEVER been emailed out to the members and a full day has already passed in the nomination's process. So in fact, unless someone digs through a forum post here, they still have not been provided with a clear announcement as to how they can properly make nominations for this election. And given some of the other startling discoveries this evening, it looks like maybe only 75 members are now considered eligible to vote instead of 387 as the board's minutes stated?

I will simply point to this as yet another STUNNING example of how the board clearly is not putting the members and their rights first. They are working at extreme haste to strip members of their rights at every turn. And the callous treatment of the members is just another classic example of the utter disrespect those in positions of power have for the members on the whole.

Chris&Barb, the fact that you now can't log on - it seems the site's been having some hiccups or something - maybe try logging on again? Or are you getting any kind of message?

 

[chris&barb]

I can get on now. Before i only got a blank screen, three tries. Im no newbie to on-line forums. I'm an admin on another reef forum. Never had any problem logging on to MOFIB in the past

 

[Ummfish]

I'm utterly amazed by the amateurism shown by the current board, especially as they knew this process would be heavily scrutinized. I understand that people are busy and these are voluntary positions so no one really wants to give too much of their time to them, but the way this process has been handled shows no thought at all put into the process. So, my question is: Given that they obviously don't want to put any work into the jobs they hold, why are they so desperate to hold on to their seats?

 

[mpedersen]

Given that they obviously don't want to put any work into the jobs they hold, why are they so desperate to hold on to their seats?

A MOFIB member a few months back asked a similar question in a more pointed fashion? It was something along the lines of "does this have anything to do with the fact that Matt is becoming famous?"

When there is NO direct money involved, what's left? Frankly, with MOST volunteers, I've found that MOST of the motivation is for self-validation. I.e., the title "MOFIB BOD MEMBER" is what it's all about in the first place. Watching how most volunteers never really did anything, I learned that they volunteer largely for the title. Being on the BOD of MOFIB probably was, for a few months or a half a year, something rather prestigious. It gets you things like being asked to be on the radio (Look up Dr. John's multiple Blue Zoo Radio interviews) or to go speak at clubs. It gets you noteriety. Certainly, if you are in a position of leadership, it can come back to help you in OTHER ways, whether that be a stepping stone into another larger organization or a paid gig, or in Dr. John's case, it certainly cannot hurt his full time clownfish hatchery business.

And on the flipside, I also learned that the people you really want in these positions of power are typically the people most reluctant to accept them. Generally, people who are actively seaking out power in a volunteer organization generally have their own interests in mind, not that of the organization. It was a rare treasure when I found a volunteer who reluctantly accepted a job when asked...they invariably did a bang up job.

Those other individuals who'd come to me with all these crazy ideas for projects typically were the ones with 0 followthrough, instead after a short while project left and wanting to do something different. I'll put it to any MOFIB member - what the heck is going on with the Breeder's Challenge? It could be the FLAGSHIP hobbyist activity..I even used CORAL's generous ad donations to PROMOTE it in the first 2009 CORAL issues, and look at it now, DEAD, because Christian Hoffman is off doing "discussion topics" about growing out brine shrimp to adulthood instead in yet another no-participation failed user-facing idea/scheme of his. And why does Christian want that project in the first place? Because he runs it, he's the head of it, it makes him *look* like the expert. It's not about Christian leading a discussion of value that helps breeders, it's about Christian making Christian feel important by being the "leader".

 

[mpedersen]

Now a 6th set of "qualifications" for voting has been put out there, but this one changes the qualifications for who can run for the board has changed again,and is different from what is posted in the bylaws, which is different from what anyone has been lead to believe. Voting members are eligible to run according to the bylaws. If you change the qualifications for what constitutes a voting member, that change automatically becomes the qualification for a board member in the elections. Mark Vera doesn't think that's the case and is now pulling this BS out of who knows where.[/quote]

To directly quote Mark Vera in response to the 75 member list:

Apologies but Will may have jumped the gun here. We originally discussed a more ridged set of requirements for the Nominating and Nominated. However these rules were never voted on and eventually dropped as shown by the meeting minutes. By default the requirements resolve to the requirements as outlined in the Bylaws.

To be clear here ANY VOTING MEMBER IS ELIGIBLE TO NOMINATE.
A voting member for the purpose of this election is anyone who:

Has posted at least twice in the last 12 months.
Been a member at least 90 days prior to the election announcement
Or has served as a moderator, committee member, Admin or Board Member in the last twelve months.


Nominees for the board of directors MUST fit the following description:

Has posted at least 20 times in breeding forums in the last 12 months.
Been a member at least 90 days prior to the election announcement
Or has served as a moderator, committee member, Admin or Board Member in the last twelve months.


These guidelines are relaxed from the bylaws that were voted on in the last meeting in order to open the election further. If you feel you were excluded from this election in error a committee has been formed and your eligibility may be appealed by emailing or pm'ing the Admins. The appeal process is very specific and a public announcement to this effect was supposed to go out today. Please contact Admins via email or PM to have your case reviewed.

Again, as per the bylaws, the qualfications are:

Any "Voting Member" of MOFIB in good standing may become a Director of MOFIB. The Directors shall have the power to direct, organize, manage and supervise the activities of the MOFIB.

There has been no other discussion of changing board eligibility, nothing voted on by the BOD in the meeting minutes, so the bylaws remain the binding force then.

 

[mpedersen]

OMG, someone just deleted a very valid post of mine! The post was very simple, it was titled "NOMINATE ME LIST". The body was:

The board has provided no way in which you can nominate yourself, so I'm proposing that if you want to run for the BOD and you haven't been nominated, please post your name here so another member can a) check the existing nominations and b) if the person they wanted to nominate has already been nominated, they can c) perhaps nominate you instead.

I am REPOSTING THIS IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Anonymous]

Matt, aren't you mpederson? If so, your name's on that list, which is rather amusing given all I've been reading in this thread.

 

[mpedersen]

Matt, aren't you mpederson? If so, your name's on that list, which is rather amusing given all I've been reading in this thread.

Oh yes, mpedersen is the user account I still have on MOFIB, and I'd like to point out that it is the FIRST user account ever registered with the site too I used to have three or four for testing purposes (i.e. mwp2, mwp, mwp44), which were non administrative accounts, but they deleted those (and the PM's contained within) when they forced me out, and made it a "crime" to have more than one user account (yet the board has one, and at least one member has one).

Granted, I'd have to ask, is it amusing to see my name on the list because they forced me out, or because with all the whinin' and bitchin', you think I shouldn't be on that list?

Matt

 

[mpedersen]

ANOTHER FRESH ROUND OF TOTAL CENSORSHIP OF MEMBERS DISSENT. Like a half dozen threads just vanished overnight.

Once again, it is clear that if you don't agree with the board, you will be SILENCED. Nominations thread, gone. Chris&Barb's Why am I not a voting member? Gone. Elections thread? Gone. Nominate Me List? Gone twice. PaulG's alternative suggestion, gone.

I got this one simple PM from Christian, one of the people who should not be in power @ MOFIB:

Hi Matt

Some of your posts have been edited, or moved.

If yuo have something constructive to say in a polite and respectable manner please do, otherwise your posts will continue to be moderated and or removed.

Thanks

Christian

Not just my posts removed. pages and pages of posts. Entire discussions now never happened. I saved them all.

 

[mpedersen]

And now my posts citing that these posts were deleted have been deleted.

Matt

 

[Morgman]

What happened to the post listing 1-4 things the BOD should do? This included for the BOD to step down after they are voted out with the new elections. Then the old BOD could act as consultants for the new board. That was the best post on MOFIB in over 2 months.

 

[bookfish]

I liked Pauls suggestion. It was well thought out and wasn't inflammatory, disrespectful or rude at all. I have to assume it was deleted simply because it suggested the current BOD step down. So now it is apparently forbidden for a valid member to suggest a change of leadership. And there have been multiple changes of qualifications for voting members and nominees since the announcement of pending elections. Last i recall the nominations were scheduled to end Sunday. Could the BOD still be thinking this is a fair timeline when the process has been so confused?

 

[chris&barb]

My thread was up at about 5:30 this morning so it was removed some time after that. Its just crazy that you cant ask a simple question over there.

 

[Anonymous]

Keep 'em busy! :lol:

Matt, aren't you mpederson? If so, your name's on that list, which is rather amusing given all I've been reading in this thread.

Oh yes, mpedersen is the user account I still have on MOFIB, and I'd like to point out that it is the FIRST user account ever registered with the site too I used to have three or four for testing purposes (i.e. mwp2, mwp, mwp44), which were non administrative accounts, but they deleted those (and the PM's contained within) when they forced me out, and made it a "crime" to have more than one user account (yet the board has one, and at least one member has one).

Granted, I'd have to ask, is it amusing to see my name on the list because they forced me out, or because with all the whinin' and bitchin', you think I shouldn't be on that list?

Matt

I think someone at least needs to proofread their own list. The whole thing really has gone completely down the tubes.

For me it's completely amusing because they're clearly not keeping track of themselves or even each other. I mean, why go to ALL the trouble to get rid of you, only to put you up as an eligible member on a list THEY generated? What is up with that? I want what they're smokin' because it must be good.