Re: problems with the election

[http://www.sneakemail.com/~bccme]

Dale - I never answered your question.

Yes, you should ignore that column.  But, you need to filter out the second (or 
third?) members of dual membership households.

Also, we'll have to add up the numbers after both elections have finished.  
Obviously, not hard, but not automated, either.

I think we should run the 63-member election for 2 weeks just like we did the 
first one.

Would you be able to do this on your own?  Or, would it make sense to get 
together again?  We could also do it electronically, such as a Google Hangout, 
if you want.  (I'd have to use Noelle's account since I don't "do" Google.)

 > From: robert b
 > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 02:47:27 +0000
 >
 >  > From: Dale Elliott <http://www.mengarelliott.com/~dale>
 >  > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 16:39:48 -0700
 >  >
 >  > Actually, I think I see it. There's a "Membership Active"
 >  > column. A spot check shows that these members have "FALSE" in that
 >  > column. Apparently, it doesn't mean what we thought it meant, or
 >  > it is inaccurate.
 >  >
 >  > Do any of you know what that column means? Should we ignore it and send
 >  > ballots to these 63 members?
 >
 > It looks like that column was never maintained.  I guess that explains it.
 >
 >  > Dale