I disagree. The ALAC is in a mess with quorums not being met and votes not being cast. At the regional level local ALSs are not aware of the degree of non-participation of the members that are standing for re-election. On one list a candidate's work was described as "inpeccable" even though that person attended only 2 monthly conference calls in the last six months, only voted once on ALS accreditations in the last six months, and only submitted one monthly liaison report in the last nine months. With no member performance records available for review on the regional lists during an election cycle, the ALAC is allowing elections to turn into nothing more than a popularity contest. This could have been avoided by the Chair communicating the nature of the participation problem to each given region so that they could decide whether certain members warranted their continued trust or not. You had a chance to enforce your own rules and to ask those that are clearly not participating sufficiently (by your own metrics) to resign. By choosing not to enforce the ALAC's own rules, the ALAC will assuredly reap the consequences of continued substandard performance.