24:3 (2009:09) 24th Conference: NASIG Brainstorming Session Notes

September 15, 2009 at 1:29 pm | Posted in Brainstorming, Conference Reports | Leave a comment

NASIG BRAINSTORMING SESSION NOTES

June 6, 2009

Topic:  Should NASIG consider open elections, or continue with the current vetting process?

Bob Persing moderated the discussion and reviewed ground rules and process for the meeting.  There were approximately 93 people in attendance.

Brainstorm moderator Bob Persing.

Brainstorm moderator Bob Persing.

QUESTION 1
During the election cycle, which works better, the NASIG nominee profile form, standard CV, or position statement?

This question resulted in lively debate with numerous comments as follows:

  • If a candidate does not have an up-to-date CV they could opt to use the NASIG nominee profile form.  If they do have an up-to-date CV they could edit that down and use that.  That imposes less work on the potential candidate.
  • Either is fine, but the expanded position statements are really helpful in deciding who to vote for.
  • The position statement is really a key factor, so keep the expanded position statements.
  • Questions on the profile form should reflect what is going to be asked on the reference questions.  It wouldn’t hurt to have both the NASIG nominee profile form and the edited CV.
  • CV should be limited to 5 pages.
  • There should be something that is standard to each candidate so N&E can do some comparisons when reviewing qualifications.
  • The increased length of the position statement is a real plus for voters.
  • Have potential candidates do just the CV or profile form, then if they make to the next level they should be asked to write the position statement. Cut down on the work for nominees.
  • Inform the candidates as to what the reference questions will be, so they can select the appropriate people to be references.  It was noted that the reference questions are posted on the N&E website at http://www.nasig.org/about_elections_process.cfm.
  • There were several comments that the N&E committee members should have a script to read from when talking to the candidates to make sure everyone is getting complete information.
NASIG members brainstorm about the election process.

NASIG members brainstorm about the election process.

June Garner emphasizes a point.

June Garner emphasizes a point.

QUESTION 2
Should NASIG go to a totally open election process and abandon the vetting process for all positions, or just the keep vetting for the president and treasurer?

  • Some of the comments on this question are as follows:
  • The current system has worked well for 24 years. We have added the petition candidate process, so in essence anyone with 10 signatures can get on the ballot.  We should keep the vetting process. It serves a valuable service.
  • We should keep the vetting process.
  • Service outside of NASIG should be considered more in the vetting process to allow newcomers to NASIG an opportunity to get on the ballot.
  • Views outside of NASIG are important, so should have well rounded candidates to serve on the board.
  • Current election process works well, and it should not be changed.
  • N&E should have standardized questions and information to send to potential candidates.
  • An open election process would have a ballot that would be unmanageable.  We should keep the vetting process.
  • The present process works well.
  • If the open election process produced a very large ballot, there is a possibility that some would just not bother to vote.  Keep the current system.
  • It was noted that 50% of the N&E committee has to be new each year, so fresh perspectives are brought to the committee.  Guidelines for N&E are at http://www.nasig.org/about_elections_process.cfm
  • NASIG members should remember that if you have been through the vetting process and have not been slated, then you still have the petition process to get on the ballot.  The slate is announced before the call for petition candidates.  Online voting allows for more flexibility in timelines.
  • Several expressed an interest in extending the timeline for petition candidates to get their paperwork submitted.
  • It was noted that a larger ballot might result in the need for more run-off voting.
  • A question was raised as to the length of time between the end of voting and the notification of successful and not successful candidates.  The process was explained and the need to have all successful candidates notified and accept their positions, before non-successful candidates are notified.  If an elected candidate declines a position, then the next highest vote receiver for that position would be the elected candidate.   This process can sometimes take several days.
  • It was noted that with the advent of online voting, perhaps the N&E timelines could be adjusted.  The NASIG Bylaws need to be consulted, as some of the timeline is based on the NASIG Bylaws language.
Paula Sullenger makes another point.

Paula Sullenger makes another point.

Persing thanked all for attending and for the great participation in the discussion.

Respectfully submitted,
Joyce Tenney
NASIG Secretary

Drafted 6/22/09

Advertisements

Leave a Comment »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: