by Karen Leonard
| Candidate Jim Dougherty Vivien Li Sandy Tepfer Roy Hengerson Joni Bosh Madge Strong Philip Berry Judy Anderson Calvin French Ron Mayhew Michael Garabedian Barbara Reber Bruce Knudtson R.J. Secor |
State Wash. D.C. Mass. Oregon Missouri Arizona California California California California Georgia New York California California California |
Votes 39,372 32,125 31,999 28,278 26,764 21,383 19,875 18,771 17,006 15,584 15,151 12,871 11,301 6,841 |
Many will be analyzing these results, and I want to point out three aspects which struck me. FIRST, the candidates from California did poorly, probably because the strong campaign mounted by supporters of the restoration of mountaineering insurance split the vote that normally would have given a place on the Board to at least one of the nominated candidates. SECOND, when one looks at "matched pairs" of female and male candidates on the ballot, by which I mean Anderson and French, Reber and Knudtson, and possible Strong and Berry, the woman is about 1500 votes ahead in each case. Since there were five female candidates and five votes per voter, it is possible that feminist voters gave women that slight edge over comparable men. For that reason, I am inclined to choose 11,301 (Knudtson's vote) as the true measure of support for mountaineering among the voters. AND THAT IS MY THIRD AND FINAL POINT, THAT 11,301 OF THE 62,990 VALID BALLOTS CAST, OR 18% OF THE VOTERS, WERE FOR BRUCE'S VERY STRONG AND CLEAR STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR MOUNTAINEERING INSURANCE!
UNWANTED SILENCE ON THE MOUNTAINEERING INSURANCE ISSUE
Many of us wrote letters to the editor of the Sierra magazine protesting the lack of information about the mountaineering insurance issue, particularly given the continued mountaineering image portrayed in the magazine at the same time. Ron Jones finally got a letter back from the editor, saying among other things: "It has been my decision all along to keep mum on the insurance controversy, until the matter is firmly decided, by the Club leadership." Never mind that this was an election issue and an issue of national policy that affected an unknown number of members - the membership had no need to be informed, our editor felt. More letters of protest are in order (even though most of the first ones have not been answered).