Making Nominations

[tbakos]

Originally Posted by Lucy

I have no serious issues with the CAS nominating procedures. Roberts Rules of Order are used to fill in holes, not to over-ride procedures that are spelled out. FCAS clearly have the right and abilty to nominate candidates, even if such candidates are required to get some signitures to be on the ballot. (And I'm pleased that they are required to do so. I wouldn't want the ballot cluttered with names of people who don't have the time or energy to even collect a few names, or are so obscure or disliked that they are unable to collect those names. And frankly, every small organization needs a nominating committe of some sort to make sure there are enough viable candidates. Certainly every small organization I've ever been involved with has _someone_ with that responsiblity.)

I think you have made your point quite well.

I think a nominating process that requires potential candidates to get support through a petition from members is entirely in keeping with member involvement in a selection of leaders process.

And, a Nominating Committee is needed to assure an orderly election process with enough candidates on the ballot.

[JMO]

Originally Posted by limabeanactuary

I agree with having Nominating Committee being in the position to help provide nominations for positions [to make sure there's a good slate], but not preclude member-initiated nominations.

Originally Posted by bdschobel

Ditto.

Bruce

double ditto

Originally Posted by tbakos

In fact, as the election cycle now appears to be viewed, the only way SoA Eligible Voting Members (FSAs and 5-Year ASAs) can participate in selecting their leaders is to vote for one of the candidates presented to them by a nine member Nominating Committee and which candidates have been approved by the SoA Board. The election process as contemplated by the current leadership appears to make no provision for "nominations from the floor".

This is ridiculous without a "none of the above" option on the ballot.

[JMO]

Originally Posted by Anonymouse

This is ridiculous without a "none of the above" option on the ballot.

I think putting "none of the above" on the ballot is ridiculous. And, if people would actually select that option, I think it is dangerous.

[limabeanactuary]

Yeah, I'm not seeing a reason for NOTA. That would require a lot more changes, and would be unlikely to pass as a bylaws change.

I think it would be much easier for us to get a petition process for nominations set up officially.

[Brad Gile]

Originally Posted by limabeanactuary

Yeah, I'm not seeing a reason for NOTA. That would require a lot more changes, and would be unlikely to pass as a bylaws change.

I think it would be much easier for us to get a petition process for nominations set up officially.

I do, however, think it is ridiculous if the current Board can deny all bona fide FSA nominations as provided by the existing Bylaws. If they can get away with such actions, the Bylaws are a fiction and SOA becomes a farce, imo.

Well, I wasn't commenting on the ease of the bylaw change or whether it was even a good idea. But, given a situation where nominations are not permitted, I think most people would at least like the option to say "no thanks"

[bdschobel]

Originally Posted by Brad Gile

I do, however, think it is ridiculous if the current Board can deny all bona fide FSA nominations as provided by the existing Bylaws. If they can get away with such actions, the Bylaws are a fiction and SOA becomes a farce, imo.

There are many people on the Board who believe that the words "make nominations" in Bylaws Article III, section 1(b), mean nothing more than "suggest names to the Nominating Committee." I'm not one of those people. I believe that the substantive, fundamental FSA right to make nominations has to be a meaningful right.

Bruce

[Old Actuary]

It seems to me that the nominating committee has several objectives. The main objective is to provide a sufficient number of candidates for each position, but I believe there is also an implied objective of reflecting positions held by a significant portion of members. That would be consistent with the spirit of the Bylaws statement that members can make nominations. The number of nominations submitted by members should not be particularly determinative; rather, the committee should base their decisions on viewpoints held by the overall membership. Ideally, the composition of the nominating committee should reflect the range of membership views.

I do not think any person nominated by members (or by themselves) should automatically be on the ballot, as that could easily result in chaos.

[Brad Gile]

Originally Posted by bdschobel

There are many people on the Board who believe that the words "make nominations" in Bylaws Article III, section 1(b), mean nothing more than "suggest names to the Nominating Committee." I'm not one of those people. I believe that the substantive, fundamental FSA right to make nominations has to be a meaningful right.

Bruce

Hmmm. Maybe those Board members should take a class in remedial English and pass the ancient SOA English exam? Yes, that was before my time.