No justified help for other candidates's campaigning

The six winning candidates received a great benefit, (or boost) in the election by having their campaign endorsement material mailed to voting UMCA members on a timely basis.

Mavis Irwin, a losing candidate, decided to conduct her own campaign mailing. Almost forty days prior to the voting deadline, she requested that the UMCA send her the electronic mailing list, same one used for the Lee Mitchell letter. (Some other candidates also placed this request.) This was a legal mailing list request, per the UMCA Bylaws. Irwin did not receive this list until June 5th and the deadline for voting was June 9th. Plus, the mailing list she received was in “hard copy” format, not in label form, thus she had to enter every name and address into her computer to produce her own mailing labels. This process took her over a week, by then the voting deadline had passed. Irwin sent nothing, having been denied equal and timely access to the mailing lists. The UMCA has no reasonable comment as to why it took so long for them to send Irwin her mailing list.


llamoure said...

As I understand it, the list that Mavis received was also truncated, meaning portions of the addresses were removed, most likely resulting in undeliverable mail. Why would the UMCA supply her a list with portions of the addresses removed?

SaveUMCA Team said...

Oh right, I forgot about that. first, I thought the missing tidbits such as apartment numbers comparing to UMCA's April 2007 magazine directory were just the excel-like print outs cutting the endings out of the longer addresses. But...these missing bits were actually random and even in the shorter addresses. Who knows for all of those addresses not in the April 2007 directory.

Oh well...