Stuffing the ballot box at the OAH?
On February 15, the OAH announced that is would at great expense move its upcoming convention from boring San Francisco to exciting San Jose. The reason why? One of their hotels in SF is being boycotted by a union. The OAH claims that it based its decision in large part on a recent survey that reported that 3/4 of potential conventioneers would refuse to cross a picket line.
I received what I assume to be that survey (or something like it) on February 10. The interesting thing is that it was already filled out with the answers that the PC OAH leadership no doubt wanted to see. Here is the entire post exactly as it arrived in my email. Hitting Reply and Send would have sent the completed ballot to: firstname.lastname@example.org. I have no idea who "jim Stewart" is, but I think Jon Stewart could have some fun with this.
--On Thursday, February 10, 2005 1:58 PM -0500 News from OAH
> Organization of American Historians <http://www.oah.org/>
> Thursday, February 10, 2005
> Dear Colleague,
> The OAH Executive Office is surveying all of the program participants and
> preregistrants about the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting.
> As you may know, the conference hotel for the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting in
> San Francisco is engaged in labor negotiations between the hotel workers
> union, UNITE HERE, and an association of hotels across the city. The
> union has launched a boycott of the OAH convention hotel, which may or
> may not become a strike or cause a lockout by the time of our meeting.
> As a participant and/or preregistrant, your immediate response to the
> questions below will help the OAH Executive Board and Executive Office
> finalize plans for the 2005 meeting. Please reply to this message with
> your responses.
> 1. Would you participate in the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting held at the
> Hilton San Francisco if the hotel employees were on strike? (i.e., which
> would involve crossing a picket line)
> [ ] Yes [ x ] No
> 2. Would you participate in the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting held at the
> Hilton San Francisco under a workers' boycott that probably would involve
> crossing a picket line?
> [ ] Yes
> [ x ] No
> 3. Would you attend the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting if the organization moved
> it to nearby San Jose to avoid cancelling the convention?
> [ x ] Yes
> [ ] No
> 4. Is this the first you have heard about the labor negotiations with the
> OAH's 2005 Annual Meeting hotel?
> [ ] Yes
> [ x ] No
> Thank you for your help. Please let us know if you have any additional
> Comments: The OAH handled this probelem very well, in my opinion, several
years ago, when labor issues involved the Adam's mark Hotel. I think that
this created a reliable precedent to be follwed in this instance.
> For more information and the latest news about
> the 2005 OAH Annual Meeting, visit:
comments powered by Disqus
Common Sense - 2/26/2005
The Soviets had a two-box voting system. One box was for your ballot if you wanted to vote for the Party's candidate. The other box was for you if you didn't.
M.D. Fulwiler - 2/24/2005
Looks like the "ballots" they used to have in the Soviet Union.
NO (go directly to Siberia)
Ralph E. Luker - 2/23/2005
My guess is that this thing was pretty thoroughly vetted in the OAH executive committee, that it then reached conclusions, and the leadership then sent out the ballot as Common Sense indicates in order to be able to say that they had a mandate. It's only a hat tip in the direction of consultation with the program participants and early registrants, of course, but that's probably more than we would have had in earlier days when the executive committee would have made a decision and not bothered with any broader consultation. We'd have just been told what was decided. This way, they just told us how to vote.
David Timothy Beito - 2/23/2005
How much more out of touch can they get?