11th October 2011, 01:22 PM
chiz Wrote:unfortunately that is very true.
The DF surveyed why site archaeologists didn't vote in the last IfA elections, the main reasons were that there were no 'suitable candidates', and that 'it wouldn't change anything' anyway. Well this year at least there have been candidates who are prepared to stand for Diggers' rights and will be trying to change things. And that has been exactly the same in the past. One of the main reasons why the DF doesn't call for a resolution at AGM to increase minima is that we can't rely on the hundreds of our members who say they want increased wages to actually vote (in person or by proxy) for it.
Does make you wonder who was voting - if only 4% of the membership voted and yet all of the 'digger' candidates got through does that mean a large proportion of that 4% were 'diggers'? In which case, this would seem to buck previous trends, based on what you were saying, and makea one wonder what all the rest were doing. Was it to do with ballot papers and details being sent in the post (perhaps more so to those on site and with less easy access to a computer) as opposed to by email (to those in the office)? I personally forgot when the deadline was and so missed it, but I suspect the reason is that because I had the information by email it was very easily forgotten and left in the in box. Had it been in paper in front of me I probably would have dealt with it. I wonder if anyone else felt the same?