Sad I am glad I didn't pay OSI to vote

Exactly. Appearances matter in this area, and this frankly reeks of corruption. It doesn't matter that it might be mere incompetence, it *looks* like what a corrupt organization trying to ignore votes would do if it cared so little about appearances that it didn't even need to try to appear non-corrupt. (Of course, OSI is not actually in that position, which makes me suspect incompetence instead -- but honestly even the "votes are advisory" thing is an appalling clause that should be struck straight out. The presence of continuing directors is quite enough.)