The verdict on the election challenge was finally presented to Coastal residents and it makes clear just what we have been thinking: The challenge itself was bogus, and the so-called investigation was itself almost equally bogus. Henrietta Williams, representing the city's Human Relations Commission, managed to abstract half a dozen allegations out of the mish-mash and incoherence of the challenge letter. She explained how all but one were lacking in merit. For example, in response to an allegation charging that election fliers were vaguely worded, she simply remarked that she was in possession of a flier and that she found it adequate.
It got a litte weird though when she got to the equally bogus claims that members of one union were told that they were not eligible to vote. Let us simply quote her remarks directly:
Concerning the contention that ILWU workers were told that they were not allowed to
vote is a cause for concern. Based on the review of the challenge, it seems that there was no blanket statement that ILWU workers could not vote, but that one such potential voter was provided with a provisional ballot, and he was asked to return it with a “letter from his boss” clarifying where he worked. Although it is left to the discretion of the Independent Election Administrator (IEA), HRC recommends that the governing board of the Neighborhood Council revisits this matter within the next 60 days, and that its revision be clearly defined in the election procedures and bylaws. Requiring a “specific” category of stakeholder status identification may be perceived as arbitrary and it creates ongoing conflict and mistrust in the elections process. Furthermore, upon interviewing someone about this particular claim, that individual noted that it was general knowledge that such information might be required. Therefore, the matter should have been broached and resolved prior to the election and not withheld as a possible justification to later challenge the outcome. Finally, HRC wishes to be informed of the date and time of a meeting where this matter
is to be discussed so we may monitor the discussion. It is our hope that this matter will be resolved so it does not re-appear in future elections. If it does, we will most likely deem that election to be “invalid."To say that this is Kafkaesque is to give it too little credit from the literary standpoint. It is almost a parody of 1950s era dystopian literature. Big Brother of Orwell fame is missing, but in its place we have a government bureaucrat who has prejudged Coastal's next election challenge, based on illogic and untrue assertions.
