1. Making our votes representative of our positions
Ballot #3-2016
Ballot #3-2016
Making our votes representative of our positions
Presented by Illinois & Nevada
2016 ABM, Indianapolis

2. Intent:
To ensure a vote’s final outcome is representative of the eligible jurisdictions’ voting position as truly intended.

3. How do we do this?
1. By ensuring the “denominator” on which the final vote is tallied represents only on those eligible jurisdictions that have cast a vote.
2. By ensuring a position of “Abstain” is just that: a recognized position that is neither a vote of “Yes” or “No”.

4. What Is Happening in IFTA’s Voting Process Today?
“Non-voters” (i.e. those not physically casting a vote) are counted as a “NO” vote.

5. But What is Really Happening:
Jurisdictions are being assigned a vote of “NO” whether that is their true intention or not.
Non-voters are included in the denominator of 58.
Non-voters influence the outcome of the vote.

6. What Else Is Happening in IFTA’s Voting Process Today?
Abstentions are allowed.

7. But What is Really Happening:
Jurisdictions abstaining are being assigned a vote of “NO”: clearly not their intention.
Those abstaining (Non-voters) are included in the denominator of 58.
Non-voters influence the outcome of the vote.

8. Is There More Happening in IFTA’s Voting Process Today?
Every vote taken is tallied on the constant denominator of 58 member jurisdictions.

9. But What is Really Happening:
Jurisdictions that have lost their voting privileges are being counted in the mix of 58 with a “NO” vote being assigned to them.
Jurisdictions without having a Commissioner identified are being counted in the mix of 58 with a vote of “NO” being assigned to them.
Jurisdictions absent from the ABM without a voting delegate named are being counted in the mix of 58 with a vote of “NO” being assigned to them.

10. Clarifications requested during the 1st Comment Period
Quorum language
Abstentions
Defining the base (denominator) on which to tally the vote

11. Clarification: Quorum or Minimum Required
ASSC: Require a quorum present in order to vote: 30
23 affirmative votes needed to pass
OK: Require a minimum of votes cast (floor): 40
30 affirmative votes needed to pass
CT: A Super Majority must cast a vote: 44
33 affirmative votes needed to pass

12. BUT… Having these requirements is just like today
Identifying a specific “minimum requirement” of votes that must be cast, “non-voters” still influence the outcome of the vote.

13. Example:
A Super-Majority of 44 votes cast are needed in order for the vote to be official.
Scenario: A total of 43 votes are cast. All 43 votes are cast in the affirmative: 100% of the total votes cast are in favor of this ballot. None of the 15 remaining jurisdictions are in favor of the ballot.
Outcome: The 15 remaining jurisdictions realize that if only one “NO” vote is cast, a super-majority is then met and the ballot will pass However, if the 15 remaining jurisdictions do not cast a vote at all, the vote does not become official because a super-majority of 44 votes was not met: the ballot fails. “Non-voters” influenced this vote.

14. Clarification: Abstentions
Just as today, you still have the right to “Abstain” from voting, but this ballot proposes:
you will no longer be assigned a vote of “NO” as is the case today, and
you will be recognized as formally abstaining from voting, but;
you will not be counted in the tally of the vote since you did not cast a vote.

15. Clarification: The Denominator - The base on which to tally the vote
The denominator will be based only on:
Jurisdictions that are “eligible” to vote.
Jurisdictions that physically cast a vote.

16. Clarification: The Denominator - The base on which to tally the vote
What are “eligible” jurisdictions:
Jurisdictions that have maintained their voting privileges.
Jurisdictions that have a Commissioner named at the time of the vote.
Jurisdictions that have named a voting delegate (proxy) in their absence.

17. Complicated? Not really: Total Membership
Example:
Total Membership
Minus sanctioned jurisdictions
Minus unidentified Commissioners
Minus unidentified delegates
Minus “non-voters”
Denominator 58 2 4
48 x 75% = 36
36 affirmative votes needed to pass in this example

18. -Or- 75% of the votes cast Simply: sanctioned jurisdictions
unidentified Commissioners
unidentified delegates
“non-voters”

19. If you are still concerned about the “Votes cast” language…
We already have it.
*R1555 COMPLIANCE MATTERS
.300 Initiation of a Dispute Based on a Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance
.020 An affirmative vote in writing of at least two-thirds of the total written votes cast is required to initiate a dispute based on a Final Determination Finding of Non-Compliance.

20. Additional Comments Received
“Changing the language to “votes cast” means the Agreement can be amended by only a few jurisdictions.”
“There’s no indication the current voting system is broken.”

21. IFTA’s Voting History Indicates Just the Opposite
Since 2008:
Final Vote participation is 92.39% (92% = 54 votes cast)
20 jurisdictions physically cast a vote 100% of the time
24 jurisdictions physically cast a vote 90% of the time
7 jurisdictions voted between 80-90% of the time
7 jurisdictions voted less than 80% of the time
The lowest participating jurisdiction: 53% (excludes New Jersey)
The lowest voting participation on a single ballot: 71% (41)

22. IFTA’s Voting History Indicates The System Is Broken
Ballot #1-2012:
1st Comment Period:
Support: 34 Oppose: Undecided: No Comments: 17
2nd Comment Period:
Support: 17 Oppose: Undecided: 1 No Comments: 40
Final Vote:
Support: 43 Oppose: Non-voters: 6

23. Proves The System Is Broken
Ballot #1-2012
Proves The System Is Broken
Ballot #1-2012:
Final Vote:
Support: Oppose: Non-voters: 6
Of those 6 “Non-voter” jurisdictions, 4 jurisdictions supported this ballot through two Comment Periods.
Had only one of those “supporting” non- voter jurisdictions actually cast a Final Vote, this ballot would have passed.

24. Proves The System Is Broken
New Jersey
Proves The System Is Broken
New Jersey commented “support” to the following ballots:
#1, #3, #4, #5
#1, #2, #3 #3
This acknowledges New Jersey’s position is being misrepresented by today’s voting process.
James Walker, NJ 08/01/2016

25. In Closing, Hundreds of hours can be expended upon a single ballot:
Time invested by the ballot sponsors
Time invested by IFTA, Inc.
Time invested by various committees
Time invested by your Commissioner and by your department’s staff
Time invested by the trucking industry

26. In Closing, Hundreds of hours can be expended upon a single ballot:
Time invested by the ballot sponsors
Time invested by IFTA, Inc.
Time invested by various committees
Time invested by your department’s staff
Time invested by the trucking industry
Please consider supporting this ballot to reflect a true voting outcome that is representative of the eligible member jurisdictions. $

27. Questions?
Thank You!
Cindy & Trent