I Voted NO to the New Constitution

and I voted yes to all the other amendments to the current constitution. As expected, I think Josh stated the basics more clearly than I would have. However, I would add a couple things. In my personal situation, the three petition-trustees I voted for are all against it, Unai's for it (as well as on the committee that created it), and individuals with a wide spectrum of idealogical beliefs came together to oppose it in various publications. Clearly, I was leaning towards voting against it from the start. I did read everything I got and even cut out the WSJ op-ed from a couple Fridays ago.

The primary argument for the new constitution is increased democracy, especially as it was reiterated in Unai's email. However, the supposed increase in democracy is really an increase in *appointed* positions to the governing committees by various groups of "under-representated" members of the community . Appointed positions would outnumber directly elected positions, limiting the alumni's ability to effect change through elections. And don't get me started on the "power arc".

If they really wanted a more democratic association, they would simply elect an alumni council (Pres, VPs, Sec, Treas, etc.) or assembly through direct elections. One alumni, one vote. The council (however many there may be) would nominate a slate of trustee candidates with the same option of petition candidates as currently allowed. I'm not that up-to-date on what we currently have, but it seems a whole lot more convoluted than is necessary.

I just like voting against Unai.