Blogs

Recommended change to AUTM bylaws to make Board nomination process more transparent

By Todd Sherer posted 05-09-2011 15:49

  
At the behest of the AUTM President, Robin Rasor, I recently co-chaired a task force on the AUTM Board nominations and elections process. Our task force interviewed close to 10 organizations and compared their nominations and election processes to our own. Some of the organizations we spoke to have similar processes and expressed concern over the transparency of their elections. We presented our findings to the AUTM Board of Directors during the Board meeting May 3, and recommended one change going forward:
The Nominations Committee (comprised of nine individuals, with at least five being non-Board members) will put forth at least two names for each open position, and from these, the AUTM Board will choose, by majority vote, one candidate for each open position. This slate will then go before the membership for a vote. Previously, the Nominations Committee selected one candidate for each position and presented the slate to the Board for their approval. The task force also recommended that the Nominating Committee be approved by the Executive Committee and that it be comprised of a diverse group of members representing a cross section of geographic regions, both public and private institutions, institutions of varying size, etc., and the Board agreed. As in the past, the membership will be actively solicited to nominate suitable candidates during the initial nominations period, and the membership will have the opportunity to add other qualified candidates to the final slate via the petition process.

So now you may be asking, "Why vote when there’s only one candidate?" The AUTM bylaws require a vote, and we feel that member affirmation of the slate of candidates is important. Also, a petition candidate would result in two or more candidates to choose from.

We'd like to know what you think of this change. Please post your comments here or e-mail your comments to president@autm.net.

If this change is accepted by the membership, it will require an amendment to the AUTM bylaws. AUTM members will receive a ballot to vote on the change to the bylaws.
The task force considered several alternatives including:

1. Providing members with a choice of two or more candidates for each open position: We considered this option but decided that we did not want to completely abandon the benefits of the current system which relies on a smaller more informed process for narrowing the candidate pool. In addition, there was concern that we would be subjecting the candidates that didn't win the election to unnecessary public embarrassment, which, in the long run, would result in fewer members stepping forward to volunteer for Board positions, thus further shrinking the already small pool of individuals willing to serve on the Board. We were surprised how many of the organizations we interviewed also don’t submit a slate of two or more names to the membership.

2. Elections for nominations committee members: The data we collected from other organizations indicated that this is not the norm. The task force wasn't convinced that holding elections for nomination committee members was necessary or that it would make for a more transparent process. However, we did feel that requiring AUTM Executive Committee approval of the committee composition was a step in the right direction to better assure proper balance.

3. Providing a slate of general candidates that exceeds the number of open positions: This process was very attractive and seemed to offer the best of all scenarios. However, the AUTM Board has specific portfolio positions (i.e., VP for Advocacy, VP for Professional Development) that require specific experience, expertise, and interest. If the AUTM Board decides in the future to eliminate specific portfolio positions, we will consider putting forth a slate of candidates that exceeds the amount of open positions. For example, if four Board positions were open, six candidates would be offered. The membership would vote, and the top four vote earners would be elected to the Board.





5 comments
129 views

Permalink

Comments

Robert MacWright
05-20-2011 14:41

I'm sure that Jefferson and Monroe heard many of the same arguments against allowing "common people" to vote on important leadership positions. They held fast, and today we all get to vote for positions far more important than AUTM leadership.
I agree with Marcel that the AUTM membership is entirely capable of informing themselves about candidates; AUTM probably has one of the most highly educated and sophisticated membership of any association. As for making sure candidates are serious AUTM participants, some qualifications in terms of experience in the industry or work for AUTM could easily be crafted.
The sentiment that led to these by-laws changes was positive, but the results are disappointing - all leadership selection is still in the hands of the "aristocrats." The board has 4 members on the nominating committee, a subset of the board picks the other 5 nominating committee members, and that board-selected group then proposes candidates to the board, and the board picks the winners. Is there really any chance that a dissenting voice will find its way into this process and be heard?
We all know the "petition" process is no palliative. It has never been used, probably because anyone doing so would be a "renegade," and might expect to be black-balled from consideration for AUTM leadership roles in the future. Despite the good intentions that led to its adoption some time ago, iIt has turned out to be little more than window dressing.
One way to make the petition process come alive would be to have one "at large" board seat that is only open to petition candidates, and for which there would be an open election among all candidates filing petitions. AUTM just might find such an experiment in democracy enlightening...but unfortunately, no such experiment has been proposed.

Doug Hockstad
05-19-2011 09:15

Let me preface my response by saying: I don't disagree with the overall findings. I understand the concern that perhaps we'll get reduced interest to "throw your hat in the ring" if there is a possibility of NOT getting voted in (among other concerns). So, if this is the "best" we can do, that's ok.
However, I lean a bit more toward Marcel's opinion...and I think we can do better without overhauling the entire thing. One possibility would be to have "elected" nomination committees. Have the membership select WHO will be the "king-makers" and then allow the process to continue as suggested. That, at least, gets the membership a step closer to being involved in the process...without risking "hurt feelings" of potentially losing board member contenders.
Absent that, I would argue that we remove the pretense of being any kind of "democratic" group. In essence, we are run by a "politburo". The membership "affirmation" vote really doesn't amount to much. And the argument that we MUST have a membership vote because it's in the bylaws doesn't work: we are now considering CHANGING those bylaws...so, couldn't that also change? And the worry that we need that affirmation vote process to allow "write-in" candidates, while (maybe) honorable, I'm not sure really holds water, as I'd question how often that actually happens (or has happened)...or will happen (remember the "hurt feelings"?)
So...I'm a bit of two minds: on the one hand, fine, I understand the concerns of the leadership, and am ok with accepting this is run by a "politburo"...but we should remove the pretense that it isn't; on the other hand, might we change this a bit to make it better?

R. Page Heller
05-17-2011 12:33

I am in complete support of Todd's concept. In a volunteer run organization like AUTM it is common for 10% of the members to do 90% of the work in keeping it running. It is just impossible for the mass of members to know enough about the few that carry the weight to actually make intelligent voting decisions. Even having only rotated off working committees just a few years ago, there are already many names I don't recognize. But, I trust that the nominating committee knows them well and will put together a slate that allows the organization to continue running smoothly.
I think the recommended changes are good for AUTM.

W. Shannon McCool
05-17-2011 09:50

I believe that the nominating process should allow for "nominations from the floor" so to speak. That is any member in good standing should be able to enter a name into nomination - including their own - so long as the person(s) making the nomination provides some justification for why the nominee should be considered. I recognize that adopting such an approach "plays havoc" with the historical and currently proposed approaches - and as such, is not likely to be viewed as a viable option. Such a process, if adopted, would make AUTM a better and more viable organization. That is my "two cents worth."

Marcel Mongeon
05-13-2011 09:09

It is, of course, sad, that such important changes have not garnered any comments to date.

Let me get the discussion going with my own views.

The problem with creating a democratic system is the requirement that those who are voting take an active part in that system. S key obligation of a voter is to inform themselves of the candidates. To some extent, in our broader government democracies, a large number of voters opt for an easy way out of the task of informing themselves of the candidates by relying on political party affiliation.

What is proposed (i.e. the slate that a regular member gets to vote yay or nay on) assumes that members will not inform themselves about the candidates. Somehow it is felt that although the board can fulfill this obligation, for some reason regular members will not.

I challenge this assumption.

I believe that if, as a member, I am given two choices for a position I can inform myself and place my vote as usefully as the board could. I very much urge people to re-consider the first option (members get to vote between two nominees). As an association that styles itself as an international leader, how AUTM actually implements democracy for its members is more important than the lack of current debate would indicate.

As to the nominations committee selection. As I understand the proposal, it is proposed that rather than the board selecting the committee, in the future, this will be selected at the executive committee level.

Little explanation is given for this change and I would oppose it on the general view that I always have that executive committees should be reserved for operational or emergency matters; not something that goes to the very fabric of the organization such as deciding who will serve on future boards.

I suggest that the selection of the nominations committee be left in the hands of the board itself.

Cheers