[Fmpro] Update: 1, 250 signatures now required for independent ASCAP Board candidates

[Jim Chase]

     I wonder who came up with the apparently arbitrary value of  
4.167% of the total voting membership signatures needed to have one's  
name placed on the ballot?

    Please check my math: 1250 = X% of 300,000
	X= 4.1666 percent... assuming all members receive ballots (not true;  
only paid ASCAP members receive ballots in that voting year.)

... especially when it used to be 25 signatures -- %0.0001 -- way  
back when ASCAP membership was (an estimated) 250,000.
   Five years ago.

   That same %0.0001 percentage today would amount to the signatures  
of just more than 30 voting members.  No need to check the math here,  
even if my figures are off by a factor of 10, the disparity is  
clearly overwhelming.

    Q: As long as the ASCAP ruling board is putting forth random  
requirements -- making it nearly impossible for new contenders to get  
on the ballot -- why don't they just make it a nice, round number,  
like "unanimous"?   I'll field this one.  A: Too simple, and  
transparent.

Jim Chase