On April 14, 2008, ULAA Presidential hopeful Abraham Massaley posted on the general listserves what he described as a new proposal on the electoral system to be used for the ensuing ULAA elections. Hours after Mr. Massaley’s posting, his rival in the ULAA contest, Mr. Anthony V. Kesselly, posted some questions on the proposal. Below is the reproduction of Mr. Kesselly’s statement.

HAS MASSALEY FINALLY ABANDONED HIS REVISED ELECTIONS LAW OVER WHICH HE RESIGNED IN APRIL 2004?

I was almost tempted to exhaustively respond to the proposal tossed on the listserve this morning by Mr. Abraham Massaley.  But before I do just that in the coming days, I wanted to seek some clarifications from the ULAA presidential hopeful himself regarding this proposal. 

As one who has sold himself as an astute progressive political activist and a devout believer in sound constitutional processes and reform, Mr. Massaley will be held to the obligation of always showing his respect for the rule of law and the appropriate procedures that govern the political process. 

Here, Mr. Massaley is making a proposal which he wants implemented in the ULAA elections of 2008 scheduled to be held just a little under six months away.  Following are my questions and concerns.

Is Mr. Massaley actually reading the ULAA Constitution to know that the implementation of his proposal requires a serious constitutional amendment?  In the ULAA Constitution, it is stipulated that ULAA elections are held during and at the venue of the National General Assembly and that the strength of delegations sent to the Assembly by each member-organization shall be set by the National Board of Directors (Please read ULAA Constitution, Articles 37 and 42). 

It was in line with these provisions that Mr. Massaley (in his capacity as Chairman of the National Elections Commission in 2002) drafted the Elections Law that took cognizance of the group membership structural arrangement in ULAA and set procedures for the member-organization s to submit 15 delegates each to vote in the elections.  Again in 2004, when the Board asked Mr. Massaley for a revision of the elections law, he took cognizance of the same constitutional provisions and put forth a mechanism that was based more on a semi-proportional representation arrangement. 

Today however, Mr. Massaley is essentially putting forth an entirely new system, thus jettisoning the 2004 Revised Law.  Does Mr. Massaley want the Union to ignore its Constitution now and just implement his proposal or is Mr. Massaley suggesting that we put the electoral process aside now and then go through a constitutional amendment process first?  What is Massaley actually suggesting?  How do we arrive at implementing his proposal in the immediate elections?  Is he suggesting that the Board simply sets aside this very substantive constitutional provision and orders the implementation of his proposal? Does Massaley know the procedure set for making amendments in the ULAA Constitution? I refer him to Articles 87 and 88.  

My second concern is this.  Is Massaley actually serious about this proposal?  Is he passionate about this whole "good intent" of ensuring mass participation in election decision-making by making the process easier?  If so, has he tried this method in the National Cape Mount County Association that he has now headed for four years?  Don’t his members have to fly and or drive from distances to assemble in one place to vote in the Cape Mount National Association elections at a particular venue?  What is it that has kept the political reformer from introducing this, at least as a pilot project experiment, in his dear Organization?

In the Constitution of the National Association of Cape Mountainians in the Americas (NACA), of which Mr. Massaley is President, the National Convention is the highest decision-making organ.  Article IV, Section 4.2 (B) of the NACA Constitution says this of the National Convention:

“The National Convention shall be held annually once every year in the Month of September, and shall serve as a forum to review the past and plan future activities of the Association, elect officers and take decisions on matters affecting the Association.”

In NACA, the President issues a Convention Notice specifying the date, venue, and draft convention agenda three months prior to the Convention.  Decision on date and venue of the next convention are decided at a prior convention.  This means that Cape Mountainians have not yet benefited from the fruits of their President's proposal that he is touting as good for ULAA. All regular members of NACA chapters are still required to travel to the designated venue if they want to participate in the elections.  This means all Cape Mountainians in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (those in good standing with NACA) will be required to travel to Minnesota to vote if that is the venue of the Convention. That is the system ULAA thrashed back in the 1990s under the re-structuring plan.  Why would Mr. Massaley deny his people the luxury of his new proposal but have them stranded in such a flaw-laden system? In that system, special advantage is usually given to particular candidates in elections.  For example, if NACA member A resides in a region that has more NACA members and he notices that the Convention will be coming to his region, he jumps in the race if he realizes that another person from a very far away region has declared his intention for elective office.  By sheer constraints of distance, finance, time, Candidate B who is in a distant region is disadvantaged.  His chances are slimmer than the candidate who resides in the Convention venue region.  So. ULAA dropped this system long ago.

Another bizarre aspect of Mr. Massaley’s proposal is it sole thirst for money, money, and money.  Mr. Massaley suggests that his system will even allow "non-members" in the chapters to take part in the vote to help generate funds.  I need more clarification on this to make it less bizarre. The proposal appears to be saying that some “non members” in chapters could show up and pay their membership registration fees (which is a mere $ 5.00 in PA) and qualify to partake in the ULAA elections by simply paying the addition fee charged by ULAA.  Afterwards however these individuals (whose only interest was the ULAA elections) will disappear and care less about the chapter.  Is Massaley now trying to turn the ULAA Leadership to individuals who simply have deep pockets?  What ever happened to commitment, service, devotion, etc, to the member chapters and the Union?

Mr. Massaley has caused all hell to break lose around here about his insistence on the enforcement of the 2004 Revised Elections Law.  He even recklessly dashed to officially submit it to the so-called Electoral Panel some weeks ago.  With this morning’s sudden turn around by him, can we now conclude that Mr. Massaley (the author of the 2004 Revised Law), has now finally lost faith his much vaunted Revised Law?

Finally, let me ask this.  Is Mr. Massaley not doing injustice to Brother James Kollie of Minnesota who was the first to put this same suggestion forward about same-day voting in all chapters on November 24, last year? The only slight difference is that Mr. Kollie stayed within the 2002 Elections Law framework and focused on the 15 delegates.  Mr. Massaley simply expanded it to include all members of the chapter (and even “non-members.”  Mr. Massaley must learn to give credit to whom it belongs. This and most suggestions he is fond of throwing out are usually a repeat of other people's proposals.  

As I have stated repeatedly, most of these proposals on the elections process are not necessarily bad. I could support any of the various Massaley brands (2002, 2004, and this new one this morning).   What we need to know however is that any of these proposed elections processes could be abused and misused if the necessary safeguards are absent.  Voting has always been on the same-day basis in ULAA.  That is nothing new.  What has not been happening is holding it simultaneously in all chapters and not having chapter representative to assemble at a designated venue.  What is preventing that is the constitutional requirement that ULAA elections are held during the National General Assembly.  To change that, I hold that we will need a corresponding amendment, as this is a more substantive provision.

What is confusing me is the last paragraph of Mr. Massaley’s proposal.  This part of the proposal appears to be recognizing the need for a constitutional amendment.  But what is not clear is the timing of this constitutional amendment.  Is Mr. Massaley suggesting that a constitutional amendment comes first before his proposal is implemented or the reverse?

It is my hope that Mr. Massaley will throw a bit more light on his proposal by addressing the above concerns.  No one can tell for sure--Kesselly might just decide to add his voice to the Massaley proposal.  I only hope this is not merely the prelude to the usual outburst and turbulent exit that has become the Massaley trade mark. 

All of us make proposals and hope they are accepted.  However if the proposals do not get accepted, we do not conclude that the world must come to an end, by releasing our intellectual WMD.

Anthony V. Kesselly

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania