AGTF Blog

This is the combined blog for the members of the Alumni Governance Task Force, a body commissioned jointly by the Association of Alumni (AOA) and the Alumni Council. As volunteers, we have a developed a constitution that reforms many alumni governance processes, providing for greater transparency, greater democracy, and greater opportunities for broad alumni involvement. Use the search box (above) to view our archives to see the discussions that occurred throughout the comment-gathering period. Please join the AOA Blog for an ongoing discussion of these issues. If you have questions, contact us directly by sending an email to AGTaskForce [at] alum [dot] dartmouth [dot] org; it will go to all of us, and we will respond to your email.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Voting Systems

There has already been a lot of discussion on the proposed change from the Approval voting system to Instant Run-off, but we thought that it deserved its own place on the blog and, hopefully, a little better focus. We will start by asking the question that we face in the AGTF:

What is the optimal system of voting (primarily for Alumni Trustee Nominee candidates, Association officers, and Association constitutional amendments, but also for other Association positions) when there are MORE THAN TWO candidates?

posted by AGTF at 8:40 AM

20 Comments:

  • With respect to professor Norman who laid out the case for Approval Voting very clearly... I just don't like it. It is not a compelling format and I believe the 24% participation rate is partially due to this. I would prefer a format that requires me to CHOOSE candidates even if it is flawed.

    That said, I think any format is irrelevant if we do not find a way to have a civil campaign that gives the voting alumni a real choice to make. Currently we have nothing to go on except shallow labels like 'petition candidate' or a reference to fraternity/sorority membership. A short bio is too generic and the personal statement is not enough. We need all the candidates to respond to a set of questions or an interview with a neutral party... something that gives us a sense of who the person is and why we should support them.

    By Anonymous Geoff Bronner, at 11:41 AM, October 25, 2005  

  • Hmmm... I can say that, too. I just don't like it. :-) Of course, I'm referring to rank ordering with instant runoff.

    Regarding participation rate: There are two perfectly good reasons why someone may not cast a ballot under approval voting. The first is simple apathy. The second is that the voter believes that all candidates are equally good (or bad) choices, and understands that casting a ballot with approval indicated for all candidates (or none) is completely equivalent to casting no ballot at all. This can be thought of as "informed apathy". Confusion about approval voting itself is a possible contributor to low particpation, but what basis do we have for assuming that it is a significant factor in this case? How does 24% rate compare to other institution's trustee elections? Better yet, how does 24% compare to other institutions trustee elections that use rank-order and instant run-off, versue those that use approval voting (if there are any others), versue those that use other systems? And how does it compare to participation in board elections for publicly held corporations? I don't have those answers. I do know, however, that 24% compares very favorably to board elections for a couple of national non-profits that I am familiar with.

    I favor approval voting, with an effort made to improve the instructions given to alumni voters. I'll be happy to help craft a set of clear and concise instructions. And yes, finding a way to conduct a civil campaign would be a positive step. On top of that, an attempt could be made to combat apathy. I'm envisioning a neutral voice communicating what is at stake in the election. I admit that I am hard pressed to think of a way to find a truly neutral voice, but if we put our heads together perhaps we could come up with something.

    By Anonymous Richard Schwartz, at 8:42 PM, October 25, 2005  

  • Sorry to revive such an old thread, but it's really the best place to post this comment, I think.

    I think there's a problem with Instant-Runoff Voting, as written in the draft constitution:

    "4.2.8.2 Elections with three or more candidates: each voting member of the Association may vote by ranking his or her First Choice and Second Choice. In the first round of counting, voters’ First Choice votes shall be tallied. If a candidate receives a majority of the First Choice votes cast, that candidate shall be the President-Elect. If no candidate receives a majority of the First Choice votes cast, the candidate receiving the fewest First Choice votes shall be eliminated from the counting. The Second Choice votes designated on the ballots naming the eliminated candidate as the First Choice shall then be counted as additional First Choice votes cast for the remaining candidates. This process of eliminating the candidate receiving the fewest First Choice votes and counting the ballots for his or her supporters’ Second Choice as First Choice votes shall continue until a candidate receives a majority of First Choice votes cast." (similar language in 7.9.2)

    Given that each voter "may" cast a second choice vote, and that there is provision for only first and second choice votes, it's very possible that, in an election with three or more candidates, no winner will be possible. (The chances improve with each additional candidate.)

    An example: Four candidates are put forward for a trustee position (two nominated [call them A and B], and two petitioners [C and D]). 29% of the voters only cast one vote (no secondary), with 14% chosing A, and 5% going to each of the other three. Of the remaining 71% of the voters, 15% chose A followed by B; 26% chose B, followed by A; 20% chose C, followed by D; and 10% chose D, followed by C. Thus, in the first round, A has 29% of the vote, B has 31%, C has 25%, and D has 15%. D is eliminated. Now, A has 29%, B has 31%, and C has 35%; the 5% who voted exclusively for D make up the remainder. A gets eliminated, at which point B has 46% of the vote and C has 35%; again, there is no majority, so C is eliminated. B still has 46% of the votes, which is still not a majority, so B is eliminated, and no one wins.

    Under approval voting, with the exact same voting pattern, B's initial 31% would've given him the victory.

    Yes, this is a hypothetical situation, but the strict wording of sections 4.2.8.2 and 7.9.2 lead to this potential scenario. (The assumption about 29% of the voters chosing only one candidate seems safe, given that one of the complaints most often expressed about approval voting is that the vast majority of voters seem to have only voted for the number of openings available, despite it being clearly stated that they can vote for as many as they like.) Approval voting guarantees a winner; instant runn-off voting doesn't (at least, not as put forth in the proposed constitution). I don't think we want to have that possibility, do we?

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 8:44 AM, February 23, 2006  

  • As promised, we took another look at the question of voting method after our 9/15/05 draft generated so much buzz.

    The one thing we know for certain after consulting with voting experts is that 1.) the best scenario is a head-to-head contest with voters simply indicating their preference between the two candidates, and 2.) when there are more than two candidates, any voting method you use can be shown to have flaws, sometimes serious ones. There are no perfect voting systems.

    As a result of our investigations, we on the AGTF have focused on trying to structure things in a way that promotes one-on-one contests. And, even though several members still feel that IRV (or some permutation of it) has the edge over other systems, we are seriously considering retaining Approval Voting in cases when there are more than two candidates. More details will be available in our "penultimate draft," which we hope will be out by the end of the month.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 12:56 PM, February 23, 2006  

  • Bill,

    Could you give more detail on how you're trying to promote one-on-one contests? If the Nominating Committee puts forth two candidates, will petitioners be barred, or will it be harder to petition? Or will the Nominating Committee be instructed to put forth one candidate, on the assumption that there will be a petitioner--which there might not be, leading to a one-candidate race? Will there be language specifically preventing multiple petition candidates?

    I appreciate the goal, but it seems to me to be out of the reach of the constitution--what option(s) am I missing?

    I do applaud your willingness to consider sticking with approval voting. Given two options that are otherwise equal (I don't think they are, nor do many others; but the very fact that there're people arguing fervently on both sides tends to indicate they're at least somewhat close), I tend to give precedence to the simpler. (And yes, that's close to, but not exactly, Occam's Razor.)

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 5:12 PM, February 23, 2006  

  • David,

    The wording is still being drafted and discussed, but you won't have to wait long. Rest assured, however, that there will always be petition opportunities, which, in some cases, may produce a ballot with more than two candidates. It's impossible to avoid entirely.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 8:28 PM, February 23, 2006  

  • Bill,

    I'm not asking for the specific wording, just what options are being considered, and what the AGTF (or individual members) feels the merits/demerits of each are. How can we alumni give feedback, if we aren't presented with the options? A large part of the frustration many have felt and expressed has been related to the fact that we aren't presented with the options before one has been chosen and put into explicit words in the constitution, at which point there's a definite air of fait accompli. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the furor over the fact that the AGTF's "final draft", presented to the alumni last fall, was the first draft most of us had seen!

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 7:03 AM, February 24, 2006  

  • David,

    How about this? Let's see how you do at solving the dilema. I'll bet that you will quickly find yourself wrestling with the same issues that we have pondered.

    If the object is to wisely select stellar leaders for Dartmouth's future with an eye toward the current needs of the College, to promote two-candidate contests as much as possible (making the choice of voting method immaterial and unmistakingly revealing the preference of the majority of alumni who vote), to create an environment where neither Nominating Committee candidates nor petition candidates have a major timing advantage or head-start in campaigning (remember that a petition candidate must effectively begin his/her campaign in order to gather signatures), and to maintain a petition process no less restrictive than what we have today (extra points for making it even easier!), what would your suggestion look like, keeping in mind that you will have to get the approval of over 2/3 of alumni who vote in an alumni-wide vote? And, when you are faced with the inevitable trade-offs (the difficult choices between conflicting goals), how will you minimize their effect?

    The 9/15/05 draft we circulated for comment (please get over the inadvertent inclusion of the "final draft" label) had some answers to those questions, and our "penultimate" draft (available soon) will incorporate much of the feedback we've received and will further refine our attempt to solve those governance concerns. The AGTF has done an amazing job of reaching out to and including the suggestions of a disparate array of alumni. At some point, however, we have to issue our best effort and put it up for a vote. If it is a fait accompli, it is surely one accompli by a great many alumni with a broad range of viewpoints. My personal hope is that many alumni (like you!) will carry on even after new structures and procedures are put in place, further adapting the constitution and procedural guidelines to the developing needs of the alumni body and the College. But we have to at least take a first step.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 7:32 AM, February 28, 2006  

  • Bill,

    I like to think that I've been working through these issues in my posts to this blog, but I'll take your challenge.

    As you know, I've proposed (several times) the elimination of the Nominating Commmittee and requiring all officer & trustee candidates, as well as constitutional amendments, be put forth solely on a petition basis.

    So, to your points:
    a) wisely select stellar leaders: I think having all-alumni voting covers this very easily. We've all graduated from one of the best darn Colleges around, and I dare anyone to say that the majority of us can't pick a good leader!
    b) promote two-candidate contests as much as possible: Well, as you may have guessed from my questions above, I'm not really sure how this could be done without setting up an explicit two-party system, something which I think we ought to avoid at all costs. Admirable as the end may be, I can't see a means to get there (and can't think of any examples where it's been achieved), hence my asking what options were being considered. Just because I'm ignorant of an option doesn't mean it's not a valid one. :-)
    c) revealing the preference of those who vote: I personally think approval voting covers this; the only argument against it I've seen is that it's confusing (more a problem of communication of the rules than with the system itself); frankly, I can't see IRV being any less confusing.
    d) eliminate timing advantage between nominating committee candidates and petitioners: By making everyone a petitioner, this concern disappears. Everyone starts campaigning when they chose to.
    e) make petition process easier: As I see it, right now, the only difficulty in the petition process is the number of signatures required. I don't think I know 1% of the alumni body, so getting that many people to sign (in a short time period) allowing me to run seems a bit of a stretch. This could be rectified by opening up the alumni address lists, but that'd (obviously) be a bad idea; a better option, in my mind, would be to lower the number of signatures required. Of course, eliminating the NC would mean that everyone has to follow the same procedures, so petitioners aren't at a disadvantage.
    f) get the approval of 2/3 of the alumni: Well, it's hard to know this without having gotten any feedback from other alumni (although I've seen a few others raise the same--or at least similar--suggestions); so it's possible that, however enamored I am of my idea, a lot of people would hate it; I'm sure the AGTF can sympathize with that. I like to think, though, that it would garner popular support, as it places the vast majority of the power over the alumni in the hands of the alumni themselves. People like being empowered.

    So, of your points, the only one I don't feel I've been able to address is the second one, and that's one I'm not sure can be addressed without some severe downsides. I've asked for others to comment on my proposal, to point out any spots where it's weak, so that we can explore options; so far, I haven't gotten any response other than Anton's rather terse reply here. Alternatively, if I've missed a specific part of your challenge you think my proposal fails, please point it out--I enjoy the opportunity to defend my ideas!

    (Incidentally, there've been a lot of comments recently about the next revision being the "penultimate" one--is that a misnomer, or it there truly an expectation that there will be one more revision after this next one?)

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 12:21 PM, February 28, 2006  

  • David-

    I was not trying to anything but collegial in my reply to you. My reply was short becuase between AGTF stuff and client work that supports my "Dartmouth habit", I've had a crazy couple of weeks... ;-)

    Yes, we will be presenting one more draft prior to our final; it indeed will be the penultimate version of our proposed constitution. Stay tuned!

    -Anton

    By Blogger Anton Anderson, at 2:27 PM, February 28, 2006  

  • David and Bill (and others):
    Please see my most recent post on the "Better Representation" thread, as it is related to your posts here about the nominating committee.
    Tim
    ps I'm not that competent on this blogging; offline perhaps you can advise me how to insert direct links.

    By Blogger Tim Dreisbach '71, at 6:41 AM, March 04, 2006  

  • David:
    You have asked for comments on your proposal that all candidates (I believe for both Trustee and Association officer positions) be slated through petition, and specifically what would be the downside of doing this. I also await the comments of others.

    My 2 cents: The only downside is in the case of an election where no "qualified" candidate steps forward. But 1. if this were the only path, I am sure interested parties would encourage people to do so (just as the nominating comittee today solicits an individual's interest before placing their name in nomination, and 2. I prefer the alumni at large be the definers of "qualified".
    I'm with you; there are many advantages. Do others have some objection, either philosophical or practical?

    Are we modeling our structure on those appropriate for a volunteer group (like a social country club), or around a representative group (like a democratic party). "Governance" suggests it should be the latter. The former is more appropriate to the individual class/club/group organizations.

    By Blogger Tim Dreisbach '71, at 7:37 AM, March 04, 2006  

  • Bill (or other members of the AGTF who want to respond)--Have I successfully met your challenge?

    Anton--thanks for the clarification of the intended process. Also, I didn't mean to imply a lack of colegiality when I described your post as "terse", just that it was brief and didn't answer my post directly--I still haven't received any feedback from the AGTF members on their opinion(s) of my proposal.

    Tim--I don't think there'll be a problem getting at least one "qualified" candidate to run. You'll note that my proposal doesn't bar the Assembly (or any subset of them) from encouraging potential candidates to run, or signing petitions themselves; it just requires that the candidates receive a certain amount of support from the alumni at large before their candidacy is official. (Actually, the number of signatures currently required for non-presidential officers in the proposal is low enough that less than half of the Assembly could qualify a candidate; I don't think this is a bad thing, as there'll probably be less interest in/concern about those positions.)

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 6:22 AM, March 07, 2006  

  • David,

    No, I don't think you have, but I have not yet carved out the time for an in-depth response (I have neglected the blogs due to other pressing work). More (hopefully) soon...

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 8:12 AM, March 07, 2006  

  • David,

    Some thoughts:

    For starters, I personally appreciate your suggestion about having all important positions (and amendments) be nominated soley by petition. It's an interesting option, and I think I, myself, may have offered it for discussion at some point in the AGTF deliberations (I'm not sure when or why; the last two years are starting to get fuzzy).

    However, I have learned to beware the simple fix. For example, such a system does not necessarily seek out the best and the brightest, which is arguably what we are trying to do. A nominating committee process is charged with doing just that, and if you do have a committee (or some process) that ferrets out good candidates, why put another hurdle in the way of their getting on the ballot? The vast majority of alumni (or members of any group) rely on and trust a small group of people to know what is going on, know what is needed to fix perceived problems, and then select who would best serve the group as a whole. They do not want to be bothered with the small details of running the organization. The addition of a well crafted petition process can act as a safety valve in case the normal nominating process strays too far from some people's comfort zone (witness recent events). In addition, in order to get enough people involved at the leadership level or to get anything done, the number of signatures would have to be fairly low, risking that the entire process would become perfunctory and next to meaningless. Having a higher signature threshold would assume an interest and participation level that, unfortunately, we have yet to see in recent alumni endeavors.

    It is also important to ask what sort of candidates the system would attract and what sort it might repel. Would some superior candidates choose not to run if they had to publicly seek signatures before getting on the ballot, especially in trustee elections (I have even heard that some top-quality people have shied away from getting involved due to the highly charged, contentious nature of current elections, a phenomenon we can ill afford)? To some degree, a petition-only system would only serve to deepen the politicization of our relationship with each other and with the college. While this is a healthy thing once in awhile, you have to wonder if it would be beneficial over time. Even ardent dissidents in the current alumni governance debate hope that we can get beyond the rancor. Besides, further Balkanization could be an unintended result of such a system. Interest groups would simply gather enough members to meet the signature requirement(s) for their chosen standard-bearer, and ballots might only feature narrow focus candidates. Might alumni governance resemble Italian politics? (I'm kidding)

    So, you can see that I am not convinced that we should abandon the current nomination model. Perhaps we could head in the direction you suggest, but I do not think that a petition-only system is optimal or even practical at this point, despite some of the "problems" it seems to solve.

    I hope to be back soon to discuss some of your other points.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 10:25 AM, March 10, 2006  

  • Bill:
    Thank you for your insightful comments in response to David. Of all the posts here and on the AoA site, I believe the most productive have been from him and yourself. I have appreciated your communications in providing the thoughts pro and con on these complex issues, even when we have not been in agreement.
    One request as you and others move this process along, and certainly before the Boston webcast... it would be very helpful if you would identify how the "final draft" has changed since its earlier version, and what are the reasons for the revisions. Even more important, please make some comments on what were the other potential changes, either proposed by 3rd parties outside the committee and/or discussed by the committee, that were not made, with accompanying reasons why not. That would be helpful to those of us trying to weigh positives versus negative. It might also make the Boston meeting more productive by having some of the rationales presented in advance, as you personally have done on these threads. Again, while not always in agreement, I have appreciated your personal sincere consideration of concerns.
    Thanks in advance,
    Tim

    By Blogger Tim Dreisbach '71, at 5:18 PM, March 11, 2006  

  • Bill,

    (sorry about the length of this post; there's a lot to be discussed.)

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I understand your leeriness about "the simple fix"; often, something which appears simple turns out to be more complex upon closer examination (or examination from a different angle). That's why I've been so eager to get feedback from the AGTF members and other alumni on what, to me, appears to be a solid solution.

    And yes, I continue to use the present tense. Your primary concern seems to be with the "ferretting out" of the best candidates; I would contend that a nominating committee is less able to do this than a pure petition process. Under a nominating committee, potential candidates must either be known to committee members, or suggested to the committee by someone who knows them--thus there are generally only a few degrees of separation at most between the candidate and at least one committee member. Under a pure petition process, potential candidates only need to be known by an alum who has decided to make the effort to keep up with the Association's politics--whether that alum holds office or not. Thus, the pool of potential nominees is greater for petitions than nominating committees, pretty much by definition.

    Of course, the potential candidate must be persuaded to run; this is true, regardless of the process of their selection. I'll freely acknowledge that a nominating committee probably has an easier time on this aspect, just based on the weight of their being an official committee; however, if someone is a good enough candidate, one would expect many of his/her friends to encourage them to run, once the process is started, so I tend to view this as only a minor factor in favor of nominating committees--a factor which I feel is outweighed by the other downsides.

    I also note your comment that, "The vast majority of alumni (or members of any group) rely on and trust a small group of people to know what is going on, know what is needed to fix perceived problems, and then select who would best serve the group as a whole." This is, of course, true (and true in state politics, as well); the problem is, there isn't a single small group fulfilling that role. (Currently, I can think of the Executive Committee, and the group which Frank Gado et al. are part of; there are probably others that I'm not aware of.) The nominating committee favors one group over all others (arguably, even to the exclusion of all others); petition-only nominations favor all groups equally.

    Finally, you say that we can "ill afford" to have solid candidates refuse to run because of the politicization of the process. Elections are, by definition, political; if there is no politics, why bother voting? Why not pick one candidate and have done? Of course, the new proposal, when talking about petition candidates, includes the verbiage "subject to...agreement to serve if elected", so it's possible for someone to be nominated by petition without being willing to actively campaign, either for signatures or votes, so they can avoid the politics if they so desire. (I doubt they'd win, but that's beside the point.) And how can a group of over 66,000 Ivy League graduates "ill afford" to have even 100 of their fellows refuse to run for trusteeship?

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 6:01 AM, March 13, 2006  

  • Tim and David,

    One of the things that I have tried to do in my communications is to give others an insight into AGTF deliberations, which have been extraordinary. Figuratively speaking, I wish more people could have been in the room with us to see the process up close. I will continue to try to elucidate our work as best as I am able, given time constraints (I haven't even responded to some of your previous questions yet) and relevance, but I will give you one quick example. Have you ever had an ideological foe stand up for your position and insist that provisions that you seek be included, even though they dislike them? It happens in the AGTF, largely because it has become not a question of winning (which is largely where we started), but a question of what is ultimately in the best interests of alumni and the college as a whole. Balance. My hope is that more of us will be able to follow that model. Not everyone will approve of where the AGTF ended up, but I hope that the thoughtfulness, the respect, the resolve, and even the trust and flexibility germinated in the AGTF will spread.

    Now, regarding specific explainations for changes and rationales for leaving some things alone, we plan to attach an addendum to the final draft that will include our reasoning on certain controversial items. If you have a specific area you need light shed on, but sure to flag it for us soon so that we might try to include it (and hopefully discuss it here on the blog, too). That would also help me in responding to you in the limited time available.

    Very quickly using the discussion of all-petition nominations as an example (my vocation is demanding my attention), I hope you can see that the AGTF has taken a very solid middle road between the tight, "insider"-only model that we have now (and that many alumni argue strongly in favor of) and the more openly accesible, all-petition model you favor. By making the Nominating Committee an Association committee and by openly electing a good chunk of its members, the perceived single-mindedness and the limited-group-of-friends-from-which-to-choose-a-candidate issues are mitigated. At the same time, we would have a small, dedicated group specifically responsible for identifying people best suited for various positions. Yes, hopefully they would increasingly name a greater variety of candidates, making petition candidacies less of an issue. But added to the ever-present petition candidacy option would be the ability to change the make-up of the Nominating Committee to better reflect the prevailing mood. It's a much more democratic and very workable system. It even demands increased and ongoing alumni participation, an important (if a bit risky) criteria in my book.

    Like a lot of other parts of the AGTF proposal (if not the whole thing), the way we have decided to nominate candidates for various postitions is not the only way to do things, but is certainly a better way than we have now. I applaud those who seek to move further toward more open systems. In fact, the AGTF proposal has mechanisms that make further discussion and instituting even greater reforms much easier. I'm sorry if this sounds trite, but in myriad ways I really see this as not the end but a strong beginning.

    That is, however, the end of my availablity this morning. I will continue soon. My thanks to you both.

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 9:01 AM, March 13, 2006  

  • Bill,

    It seems prudent to abandon the discussion of which nominating system would be ideal, and focus on what is actually in the AGTF proposal.

    Based on section 12.6.1, the Council would pick the initial Nominating Committee during the transition year--six from the Council Nominating Committee, six from other Association members, including other Council members. In each of the next three years, two of these positions would become popularly elected ones, for a total of six democratically elected members. Based on section 4.4.1.2 (a remarkable section, which I must applaud for its ability to confuse), the non-democratically elected majority in the committee could elect a non-member to be the chair in each of those years, leading to a total of eight non-democratically elected members even after the democratically elected ones are at full strength. This majority could be continued indefinitely, as the non-elected members would continually have the majority, and thus the ability to elect an outsider to chair the committee.

    Yes, this is better than the current, entirely non-democratic nominating committees, but the simple fact is that, until 2009, the committee will definitely be dominated by non-democratically elected members, and, even after that point, may continue to be.

    So, three questions:
    1) What was the reasoning behind section 4.4.1.2's allowing for the creation of a thirteenth member?
    2) What was the reasoning behind the same section's making the chair a potential fourteenth member the next year?
    3) What was the reasoning behind the difference between section 12.6.1 (where the initial Nominating Committee could be composed entirely of Council members) and section 12.7.1 (where the initial Balloting Committee is composed of at most three Council members)?

    By Anonymous David Gale '00, at 8:49 AM, March 14, 2006  

  • David,

    Ah...those poor Council members really catch more than their share, don't they?

    Actually, you have made a good point that I had not previously seen. There was no intended difference in this regard (that I am aware of) between the new Nominating Committee and the New Balloting Committee. My understanding, and perhaps the understanding of others on the AGTF (this will certainly be discussed), was that we were creating a Nominating Committee in the transition period that would reflect, as much as possible, the way it would look had the systems been in place for a long time (i.e. half its non-ex officio members from the Assembly and the other half from the alumni body at-large). It also made sense to hold over some of the existing members (all of whom are current Council members) who might have a clue how to do the work of this critical and time consuming committee. It would, indeed, be possible, as you have shown, to stack the group with former Council members for awhile, but that would fly in the face of what was intended, I think. Perhaps what we can do is add a phrase to that section that would effectively bar those nasty insider former Council people from polluting the committee during the transition.

    But hold on a minute. Do we really want to do that? What is so bad, after all, about former Council members, per se? Do we want to restrict ourselves in our search for the sharpest, most committed people for this critical role? Some superior people with honest democracy in their hearts may have been on the Council for one reason or another (yes, it's true!). One comes to mind immediately: John Daukus, a DAOG stalwart and AGTF member (and while I feel certain there are others, I am not on the Council and am not familiar with its current make-up). Once the Council is dissolved and some of its members are thrown back into the alumni body at-large pool (i.e. not continuing on to serve on the Assembly), they may prove to be just the people needed to fill some important spots in the transition. Or not. But is it so important to bar former councilors that we lose the possiblity of their excellent service? It's just a thought.

    The 13th member of the Nominating Committee is a possiblity if the chair of the committee is someone who is elected in their last year (year three) on the group and then continues to serve on the committee for another year as past chair (a current practice and one included in the new construct). A 14th member would be possible if that situation happened twice in a row. In drafting the wording, we had to stipulate the number of members on the committee and had to make room for that eventuality.

    I hope that answers you three questions.

    Shall we move this discussion to the other threads that pertain to the most recent draft?

    By Blogger Bill Hutchinson '76, at 4:19 AM, March 15, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home