My understanding is that the election was handled by a third party, who was appointed by the judge - I cannot think of her name at the moment.

Speculating that there is a "black list" is, in my opinion, inflammatory. I have confidence that the trustee the judge appointed would not create such a list, let alone turn such list over to one of the litigating parties.

My household only received one ballot, when because of our family level membership we should have received two ballots. I contacted the trustee and explained the situation, and about one week later I had my second ballot. My information was verified and the issue corrected.

I am confident there was no "hanky panky" going on.

In any organization, there will nearly always be someone or some group in opposition to the BOD or officers. Everyone knows who they are; thus, no need for a "black list." I am confident that given recent events, the officers and BOD of the FRRS will not retaliate against those who merely have an opposing viewpoint. If, on the other hand, there are members who have (as outlined in the bylawas) acted in ways injurious to the FRRS, I am also confident that they will take appropriate action.

Let's end the baseless speculation and quite fanning the flames of a fire that, if not completely out, has died down for the moment.

EarnestRome Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because if the voting wasn't secret, couldn't you
> build a list of people who voted against the FRRS
> incumbents and then built a blacklist off that
> list and then target those members for expulsion.
> The grounds for such an action would be
> incontestably reasonable: you ened to avert any
> future insurrection from occuring. For ages,
> proscription and exile and even murder have
> followed close on the heels of political disuputes
> being definitely settled. So it's a normal action.
>
>
> Will there be opportunities for newcomers to move
> up in the organization, once the blacklisted
> members have been identified and purged?