In the October 13th, 2019 BOD meeting, the membership committee was given the task to come up with the details of verification process of online petitioners by BOD President. In an effort to reach the consensus a meeting was held on October 22nd, 2019 between BOD and the petition representatives along with representatives from membership committee.
Unfortunately, no mutually acceptable, fair, and reasonable due diligence validation plan could be agreed between the two parties because the BOD dogmatically stuck to their plan of mailing letters to all online member petitioners and insisted on only including those people in the 1/3 petition count who returned the letter in a certain time frame. This was totally unacceptable to the petition representatives as it meant that 100% of the online petitioners had to corroborate in a certain time period that they in fact did sign the petition.
Petition representatives explained several checks and balances that were meticulously implemented in the process of collecting online signatures, to minimize the chances of forgery and duplication. Additionally, petition representatives provided examples of how validation could be done statistically with a very high confidence level. However, BOD flatly rejected all these alternate proposals.
The BOD refuses to accept the online petition submissions despite its full legitimacy self evident in 7 different ways:
- Diverse IP addresses
- Unique email requirement
- Immediate confirmation sent by system to the email address submitted
- Collection of home addresses
- Recording of date and timestamp
- Comments freely submitted by 1/3 that were obviously genuine
- 97% of petitioners digitally hand-signed their names using finger or stylus
In collecting the online signatures, the Petitioners went several steps ahead of other well-known online petition systems, such as change.org, that don't even require home addresses or scrawled signature. In addition, about 60 online petitioners have subsequently emailed the BOD further confirming their signatures.
Incongruously enough, IAGD does not enact proper processes and does not even require a signature for someone to become a member or for BOD nominations. In sharp contrast, the BOD suddenly wants to impose unreasonably strict standards and demands on the petitioners.
It is clear the IAGD BOD continues to ignore and disregard the overwhelming will of the community. The BOD continues to defy reason and imposes its own unilateral decisions even if it hurts the community.
No comments:
Post a Comment