With a VERY quick review of old newsletters... it is obvious that the voting process was spelled out clearly. It certainly was clear and plain to these two candidates at the time.

I found the two articles from Rich and Nigel (NAHCA News Oct/Nov 2001).

Both in Nigel’s "NAHCA Chairman piece", in the front of the newsletter, and at the end of the article that Rich wrote, the voting process was spelled out plainly:

Rich wrote... "The way our election process works, the 16 Division Chairmen and the Women's Representative get to vote. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, please make your feelings known to your Division Chairman so the he/she may vote in a manner that accurately reflects the true desires of the membership."

Seems there was no question about how it should be done back then, so how does it make sense to second-guess it now? It doesn't make sense. For Nigel to suggest that there was some funny business going on in the background is just plain ridiculous.

The Division Chairmen voted… If you didn’t get involved back then, don’t keep complaining about the outcome and the current course of events. Either get involved now… shut up and follow… or get out of the way.