"What God has joined together, let not (the actual delegate votes) rent asunder." Would it sit well with you if your votes for delegates were tossed aside, or given to someone else that you didn't vote for? Spencerville Church members were allowed to nominate whoever they wanted as delegates to the SAA Constituency Meeting, taking place next Tuesday, June 15th at 7:00 p.m. in the school auditorium. Check here to see if your nominees are on the list of delegates:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19eMJ370DgIlsAn5sJ56Hph5NrFzHchU5wm4ip2Hho4E/edit?usp=sharing
It is only natural that husband would nominate wife, and vice-versa. So it would not be a surprise that any given list of delegates would contain some married couples. But when you review the list of official delegates that was released last week? Wow! It's dominated by couples, and some even have their children too. We count 15 couples. Statistically, it's pretty unlikely that so many couples would all be the top vote-getters in the nomination voting process among all the hundreds of families in the congregation. After all, plural marriage is not allowed in Maryland and SDA fundamental beliefs don't permit it either, so how many spouses can someone possibly have to stuff the ballot box for their soulmate(s)? Could it be that all those married couples devised a plan with so many other married couples to coordinate or "bundle" their votes, like was alleged to have happened in the 2020 presidential election. Then again, since each spouse only got 3 votes, the bundlers' would quickly run out of votes or cancel each other's votes out, so that scenario seems pretty unlikely. Or did some people get to vote more than 3 times? Let's sure hope not. Here's another angle. Even looking at those names on the official list of married delegates, whose spouses are NOT listed right next to them, consider that their unlisted spouses are highly likely to end up as delegates anyway. Why? Because the unlisted spouse likely is an automatic delegate by virtue of being on the (still-secret) SAA School Board, or on staff at the school (thank you for your service, teachers). Once you carefully match those listed delegates up with their unlisted automatic-delegate spouses, then you roughly double the amount of married couples. Wow! How could all the members in the congregation have coincidentally cast their votes to reunite the lonely automatic unlisted spouse with their beloved now-listed spouse? Amazing! Here's what's more likely. The total votes placed by congregational members were added up, and rather than being authoritative for appointing delegates, they were taken as a mere "suggestion" by the church leaders on the pastoral staff and the church board. Those "suggestions" were then regarded or disregarded as the pastors and church board saw fit, then they carefully, painstakingly designed a list stacked with husbands and wives that they like, and then paired lonely spouses with their unlisted automatic-delegate spouse, and the "Couples Retreat" was on! However all of this vote-tampering was done at the expense and exclusion of actual votes by the members of Spencerville Church who trusted that their votes would be tabulated and their decision followed.
Don't get us wrong - there are great married couples on that list, and we all believe in marriage. Perhaps this move was to reinforce the fundamental belief on marital harmony in the home? But if we are right about this vote tampering by church leaders, then why were church members even asked to vote in the first place? Apparently so that their votes could simply be set aside, so that the real deciding could happen behind closed doors. We didn't see that warning in the invitation to vote from Pastor Stuart to the congregational membership. Here's a revolutionary idea: designate the people that got the most votes as the delegates. That's what voting is for. Democracy 101.
We don't have a list of the church board members handy (is this secret too, like the SAA School Board list?), and we're sure there must be great people serving there; but it would be really interesting to see how many church board members ended up as delegates, and then to count how many votes they actually received from the congregation. Maybe church board members voted some of their own as delegates, or even non-board members that they like, even though the congregation did not vote for them. So is it just us, or do you readers and subscribers also see an ethical issue with the vote counters and vote filterers on the church board also ending up as the vote winners by ending up as delegates? Self-deal much, church board? Or maybe we're totally wrong about that. We will probably never know. Here's a revolutionary idea: seat the people that got the most votes as delegates. But if transparency matters to church leaders, then they can clear this up quite easily. Release the actual voting totals, just like the government authorities do after each election. This is what happens in a democracy - transparency. We may not love the results of elections, but by allowing us to look inside the "black box", we can accept results we like or dislike, "for better or for worse", and most importantly, we can have greater trust in the voting system. There is one last chance to stop this voting charade, which is for enough people to speak up and speak out against it, and to vote AGAINST the official list of delegates when it comes up for the "second reading" this coming Sabbath. That would be like an unsuspecting tourist trying to beat a street shyster at a game of 3-Card-Monte who is holding all the cards. Sure it is technically possible, but when was the last time that happened? How many people will find out about this in time, and how many of them will care enough or be bold enough to say anything about it? After all, people that speak out against abuses of power in this community are not celebrated as heroes; they are taken down or cancelled, and looked upon as traitors. Take SAA's former Elementary Principal Judie Rosa as just the most recent example. See our prior posts for more details. So of course Lillian Hepburn-Richmond wishes all of the fine married couples a lifetime of marital bliss together. But allow us to remind you in the most sober fashion that you lovebirds have a very serious job to do at next week's Constituency Meeting; which is to speak up for the concerns of those members in the congregation whose votes you might not have actually received, but whose delegate seats you were handed by church leaders in their latest perversion of representative democracy. So maybe a marriage seminar or a round of the Newlywed Game will spontaneously break out during that Constituency Meeting next week? Or maybe delegates will be sent home with matching his and hers party favors. So long as you delegates actually do your jobs by asking the hard questions rather remaining silent, insisting on substantive answers rather than allowing yourselves to be gaslighted, and rather than coddling SAA's officials, holding them accountable for the self-imposed disasters of the past school year; then we won't care that you got to hold hands with your spouse during the Constituency Meeting. Do your jobs, please.
- Lillian Hepburn-Richmond (a cohort of concerned parents)
We will continue to report on and cover important developments leading up to the Constituency Meetings, including a list of questions for SAA leadership to address at the meeting.
Make sure to subscribe to this Blog (see bottom of homepage) to receive emails of each new post. We welcome your news, information, and reports which you may send to us using the "Contact" form, also near the bottom of our homepage.