Nominations for the Board and Bylaws

[hockenbery]

But, it all starts with the election of the BOD. And, in my thinking, that means an open election with open discussions with the candidates. As long as the BOD has a selection committee to decide on who is qualified to run . . . . they will never have my trust. Open the candidacy to anyone who has been an AAW member for two years or three or whatever. Let them announce their candidacy in a designated forum ares of the AAW website. Allow the members to engage them in a forum dialogue . . . then, let us vote. It's the Technology Age, remember?

first candidacy is open to all. There is a filtering done by a selection board.
Posting 19 candidates in the journal gets a bit unwieldy.

I was AAW nominating committee Chair in 2007. Bob Rosand was the former board member and Mike Mahoney was our member who had not been a previous member.

We had 9 candidates for 6 positions. Candidates seeking nomination submit 2 letters of recommendation and a personal statement of why they wish to run for the board. Each of our committee members read these materials and conducted a phone interview with each candidate. In our phone interview we each asked the same 3 questions and one which was unique to ourselves. We all knew the questions the other was asking. During the interviews we allowed the candidate to provide any information they wished.
We had several phone conferences during the process. In our process we each independently ranked the candidate 1 to 9. When I did this ranking I really struggled with the who was 6,7,8. In my mind one candidate was not suitable. I did feel that whoever I put 7,8 would be a good potential board member. In essence there were 8 worthy candidates and I had to select the best 6.

In our final votes we all had the same names on our 1-5. Bob and Mike had the same person for number 6. I had another for number 6 and my number 7 matched their number 6. We spent a good 15 minutes talking about those two candidates. In the end we went with Bob and Mikes number 6. We all agreed on number 9.
One of the folks that did not make it had a recommendation letter from the AAW president. As a foot note we agreed on our 1,2,3 and they were elected.

Would another committee make the same choices?? The makeup of the nominating committee changes every year the next committee might have chosen a different 6.

The last step in the process is that the President of AAW calls the 6 selected nominees and the nominating chair gets to make the rejection call. For me that it was especially difficult to tell two qualified individuals they were not selected. I encouraged them each to consider running again.

I personally think this process works quite well.
-Al

 

[Al Stramiello]

first candidacy is open to all. The is a filtering done by a selection board.
Posting 19 candidates in the journal gets a bit unwieldy.

I was AAW nominating committee Chair in 2007. Bob Rosand was the former board member and Mike Mahoney was our member who had not been a previous member.

We had 9 candidates for 6 positions. Candidates seeking nomination submit 2 letters of recommendation and a personal statement of why they wish to run for the board. Each of our committee members read these materials and conducted a phone interview with each candidate. In our phone interview we each asked the same 3 questions and one which was unique to ourselves. We all knew the questions the other was asking. During the interviews we allowed the candidate to provide any information they wished.
We had several phone conferences during the process. In our process we each independently ranked the candidate 1 to 9. When I did this ranking I really struggled with the who was 6,7,8. In my mind one candidate was not suitable. I did feel that whoever I put 7,8 would be a good potential board member. In essence there were 8 worthy candidates and I had to select the best 6.

In our final votes we all had the same names on our 1-5. Bob and Mike had the same person for number 6. I had another for number 6 and my number 7 matched their number 6. We spent a good 15 minutes talking about those two candidates. In the end we went with Bob and Mikes number 6. We all agreed on number 9.
One of the folks that did not make it had a recommendation letter from the AAW president. As a foot note we agreed on our 1,2,3 and they were elected.

Would another committee make the same choices?? The makeup of the nominating committee changes every year the next committee might have chosen a different 6.

The last step in the process is that the President of AAW calls the 6 selected nominees and the nominating chair gets to make the rejection call. For me that it was especially difficult to tell two qualified individuals they were not selected. I encouraged them each to consider running again.

I personally think this process works quite well.
-Al

Al . . . why is it that just when things seem to be calming down a little, you and a few other Pro Board people start stirring the pot?

You're taking my comments out of context. Mark asked me to explain what I meat by "transparency, forthrightness, and integrity" . . . so I gave him a few examples.

We've all heard your lessons in the history of BOD selection. You were an advisor to the BOD . . . a BOD which led us into the trouble that we face today.

I'm tired of hearing about how Board candidacy is open to all. The harsh reality is that as long as there "filtering done by a selection board", chosen by the BOD, then it is NOT open to all. It's open to a select few "approved" by your selection board . . . that was appointed by the BOD.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Al . . . why is it that just when things seem to be calming down a little, you and a few other Pro Board people start stirring the pot?

You're taking my comments out of context. Mark asked me to explain what I meat by "transparency, forthrightness, and integrity" . . . so I gave him a few examples.

We've all heard your lessons in the history of BOD selection. You were an advisor to the BOD . . . a BOD which led us into the trouble that we face today.

I'm tired of hearing about how Board candidacy is open to all. The harsh reality is that as long as there "filtering done by a selection board", chosen by the BOD, then it is NOT open to all. It's open to a select few "approved" by your selection board . . . that was appointed by the BOD.

Go Get'em Al!!!

And while you're at it, send us some suggestions on how your proposal will be able to filter out the felons, glory hounds, and those who are just another pretty face but think it would be neat to stroll around the symposium in one of those nifty blue shirts with the, um, symbol on the front.

 

[davidwalser]

...
I'm tired of hearing about how Board candidacy is open to all. The harsh reality is that as long as there "filtering done by a selection board", chosen by the BOD, then it is NOT open to all. It's open to a select few "approved" by your selection board . . . that was appointed by the BOD.

Al,

We've heard your concerns. We plan on allowing candidates to have their names placed on the ballot by one of three methods: the current nominating committee, petition, and write-in. So, if someone you think should be on the ballot is not approved by the nominating committee, you could add his or her name by sending in a nominating petition. If you've missed the petition deadline, you could still elect your preferred candidate by mounting a write-in campaign.

The difficulty we are having, and where we could use your all's help, is in defining who's eligible to serve on the board. The only current requirement is that the person has been a member of the AAW for the prior three years. But what if the person has a criminal record or has a history of mismanaging his or her financial affairs? The questioning of the nominating committee served a useful purpose in filtering out such candidates. So, if we are going to allow candidates to be elected to the board without being interviewed by the nominating committee, shouldn't we put some additional requirements for becoming a board member into our bylaws? (I think so. The IRS would not look kindly on our having a tax cheat serve on the board of a tax exempt organization.) How would you word the "enhanced" qualification requirements for board membership?

 

[Al Stramiello]

Go Get'em Al!!!

And while you're at it, send us some suggestions on how your proposal will be able to filter out the felons, glory hounds, and those who are just another pretty face but think it would be neat to stroll around the symposium in one of those nifty blue shirts with the, um, symbol on the front.

You know, Mark . . . my big brother can beat up your big brother.

Mark, lets try something with each other . . . it can be sort of an experiment. Maybe, just maybe, if you and I can make it work . . . others will follow.

Here's my suggestion . . everytime you and I post to each other . . . let's both leave out the sarcastic attempts at humor. No sharp retorts, no smart *** cracks . . . just a decent conversation that will not fuel anybody's jets. What do you say?

Now for my comments . . . . trying to figure out who the glory hounds are is a pretty subjective undertaking . . . as are the "pretty faces". Felons and known convicted perverts can be screened with a criminal record check. Whoever decided to throw their hat in the ring for BOD candidacy . . . has to provide the AAW Executive Director with a notarized background check.

What are the legal implications of such a strategy? And, how can we make it work?

 

[George Guadiane]

Go Get'em Al!!!

And while you're at it, send us some suggestions on how your proposal will be able to filter out the felons, glory hounds, and those who are just another pretty face but think it would be neat to stroll around the symposium in one of those nifty blue shirts with the, um, symbol on the front.

Mark,
I get your "sense of humor," but if you are interested in getting more people on your side, not smacking them in the head with your point of view might work a little better... ie:
Al,
We may well need to make some changes to the nominating process, but we do need one. (I'm assuming the ByLaws prohibit felons and glory hounds for this part - I haven't read anything to that effect) We need to keep felons (who may well have paid for their crimes and turned their lives around - people who have seen the error of their ways and want nothing more than a chance to try and make up for their pasts and contribute in a positive way) and people who want the title, but who don't want to do the work from taking up limited and valuable time and resources from getting seated. It seems that a letter of intent from a prospective member/candidate and a couple of letters of support are not sufficient to provide the assurance needed to protect the Association, our time and assets from potentially unscrupulous or misdirected people from becoming board members.


NOW, if I were being snotty, I'd add something along the lines of:
and we CERTAINLY need to try to make certain that BoD members, once out of office, don't come back to brag and/or lord it over us mere mortals with "facts" and opinions from "on high,"
but I'm not that kind of guy.

 

[Al Stramiello]

Al,

We've heard your concerns. We plan on allowing candidates to have their names placed on the ballot by one of three methods: the current nominating committee, petition, and write-in. So, if someone you think should be on the ballot is not approved by the nominating committee, you could add his or her name by sending in a nominating petition. If you've missed the petition deadline, you could still elect your preferred candidate by mounting a write-in campaign.

The difficulty we are having, and where we could use your all's help, is in defining who's eligible to serve on the board. The only current requirement is that the person has been a member of the AAW for the prior three years. But what if the person has a criminal record or has a history of mismanaging his or her financial affairs? The questioning of the nominating committee served a useful purpose in filtering out such candidates. So, if we are going to allow candidates to be elected to the board without being interviewed by the nominating committee, shouldn't we put some additional requirements for becoming a board member into our bylaws? (I think so. The IRS would not look kindly on our having a tax cheat serve on the board of a tax exempt organization.) How would you word the "enhanced" qualification requirements for board membership?

Thank you, David, for the inquiry. I appreciate your solicitation of our input.

In the post before this one, I made a suggestion about candidate's providing the Executive Director with a notarized criminal background check. I understand the importance of having BOD members with clean personal financial matters. How does the current Selection Board handle this? Do they require a credit check?

Also, can you give us a little information as to how the Nominating Committee would be selected?

 

[Owen Lowe]

The harsh reality is that as long as there "filtering done by a selection board", chosen by the BOD, then it is NOT open to all. It's open to a select few "approved" by your selection board . . . that was appointed by the BOD.

Al, at least part of the "filtering" you are unhappy with is dictated by the bylaws which state only two finalists are to be presented for each open seat on the board. Filtering must be done to meet that requirement whenever the applications exceed the 2x the open seat formula.

Section 5.18 Board Elections.

(c) Responsibilities of the Nominating Committee

iii. Interview and review all candidates including any incumbents
to:

3. Select two candidates for each open position and provide them
with guidelines.​

 

[hockenbery]

The difficulty we are having, and where we could use your all's help, is in defining who's eligible to serve on the board. The only current requirement is that the person has been a member of the AAW for the prior three years. But what if the person has a criminal record or has a history of mismanaging his or her financial affairs? The questioning of the nominating committee served a useful purpose in filtering out such candidates. So, if we are going to allow candidates to be elected to the board without being interviewed by the nominating committee, shouldn't we put some additional requirements for becoming a board member into our bylaws? (I think so. The IRS would not look kindly on our having a tax cheat serve on the board of a tax exempt organization.) How would you word the "enhanced" qualification requirements for board membership?

David,
Our nominating committee did not do any back ground check. I suppose there is a way to do this easily.
A long time ago I had to get a "police card" to work at a political convention. It basically was a photo id with a thumb print and was issued after the Miami/Dade could find no outstanding warrents or convictions.
If you put a requirement on the potential nominee we'll get fewer candidates. We already lose some because they don't get 2 people to write them a letter on time.

A petition is a neat idea but how many names? 200? 700? 50?
From time to time we try to get the club presidents to put names into the candidate pool. It has not been effective.

-Al

 

[George Guadiane]

David,
Our nominating committee did not do any back ground check. I suppose there is a way to do this easily.
A long time ago I had to get a "police card" to work at a political convention. It basically was a photo id with a thumb print and was issued after the Miami/Dade could find no outstanding warrents or convictions.
If you put a requirement on the potential nominee we'll get fewer candidates. We already lose some because they don't get 2 people to write them a letter on time.

A petition is a neat idea but how many names? 200? 700? 50?
From time to time we try to get the club presidents to put names into the candidate pool. It has not been effective.

-Al

Well, isn't THIS great!
Al S is complaining that, as things stand, it is nigh on to impossible to get nominated if the BoD "doesn't want you" (apparently some value to that concern) Mark M jumps in with the need to keep out the felons and braggarts, as if that's a FACT (no, not really). (David W jumps in and raises similar concerns)
George G. jumps in (taking the lawyers words as having value) and complains about the tone of Mr. M's wording (then makes a little smack of his own).
Al H (who has actually BEEN on a nominating committee) explains that there is absolutely NO vetting process, beyond the need to get your letters of support delivered on time. But he sees that there could be a need to vet candidates in the future.

There is a lot of BAD ATTITUDE in this process. If there is a way to take our egos out of this, it would be a really good idea. In the end, Al S has a reasonable concern, based on the fact that Al S has actually BEEN on a nominating committee, appears to report that there are no exact criteria for rejection... I did read on the pages today that a maximum of two per open slot is the max according to the ByLaws... SO, If there are more than two who get their supporting documents in on time, a means of selecting from that group needs to be established/created to insure fairness -
First two to meet the criteria? Most popular with the BoD? Open up to all comers? Something equitable that doesn't guarantee an inside outcome seems best for ALL of the membership.

We need a broad spectrum BoD (antibiotic) to insure that this kind of infection doesn't take us over again.

 

[davidwalser]

David,
Our nominating committee did not do any back ground check. I suppose there is a way to do this easily.
A long time ago I had to get a "police card" to work at a political convention. It basically was a photo id with a thumb print and was issued after the Miami/Dade could find no outstanding warrents or convictions.
If you put a requirement on the potential nominee we'll get fewer candidates. We already lose some because they don't get 2 people to write them a letter on time.

A petition is a neat idea but how many names? 200? 700? 50?
From time to time we try to get the club presidents to put names into the candidate pool. It has not been effective.

-Al

Al, I didn't mean to imply that the nominating committee did a background check, but the committee's extensive interviews of each candidate put the committee members in a better position than the rest of us to determine if a candidate doesn't "feel right". That's a subjective test that, it was hoped, would screen out most of the candidates who were unfit for one reason or another. If we are going to allow candidates to bypass this subjective screen (by being nominated by petition or elected by write-in ballot), the question is should we replace the subjective screen with some objective requirements.

 

[Owen Lowe]

In the end, Al S has a reasonable concern, based on the fact that Al S has actually BEEN on a nominating committee, appears to report that there are no exact criteria for rejection...

George,
I may well be getting confused on the Al S and Al H in your comment - Did you mean Al S has a reasonable concern, based on Al H having been on the nom. committee...?

Most popular with the BoD?

I hope we all understand that this really isn't part of the process as outlined in the nomination procedure. The only people who have the ability to determine who continues the process to final candidacy is the nominating committee.

PS - George, you mentioned paid leave (your recent trip to Hawaii, I presume). Nervous breakdown from the June & July fiasco? Severe carpal tunnel? (I kid, I kid!)

 

[Al Stramiello]

George,
I may well be getting confused on the Al S and Al H in your comment - Did you mean Al S has a reasonable concern, based on Al H having been on the nom. committee...?



I hope we all understand that this really isn't part of the process as outlined in the nomination procedure. The only people who have the ability to determine who continues the process to final candidacy is the nominating committee.

PS - George, you mentioned paid leave (your recent trip to Hawaii, I presume). Nervous breakdown from the June & July fiasco? Severe carpal tunnel? (I kid, I kid!)

George mistakenly typed an Al S for an Al H . . . back apiece. Al S (that being "me") has never served on a nominating committee. Although I did once attend a Bobby Kennedy rally. But, that was a ways back.

In any event, at one point, Al H and I were in negotiations about using the titles of "The Good Al" and "The Bad Al". However, discussions broke down over who would win the acclaim of being "The Bad Al". Al H currently holds the title . . . at least according to my scorecard. Right Al H?

 

[Mark Mandell]

George mistakenly typed an Al S for an Al H . . . back apiece. Al S (that being "me") has never served on a nominating committee. Although I did once attend a Bobby Kennedy rally. But, that was a ways back.

In any event, at one point, Al H and I were in negotiations about using the titles of "The Good Al" and "The Bad Al". However, discussions broke down over who would win the acclaim of being "The Bad Al". Al H currently holds the title . . . at least according to my scorecard. Right Al H?

You guys can sort this out, become long lost pals, but just don't call me "Betty"

 

[Owen Lowe]

In any event, at one point, Al H and I were in negotiations about using the titles of "The Good Al" and "The Bad Al". However, discussions broke down over who would win the acclaim of being "The Bad Al". Al H currently holds the title . . . at least according to my scorecard. Right Al H?

So one of you isn't secretly an Alfonso, Allistair, or - my personal favorite - Alowishus.

 

[Mark Mandell]

So one of you isn't secretly an Alfonso, Allistair, or - my personal favorite - Alowishus.

Don't leave out Al-fred, Al-an, and my favorite

"Al-be-down-to-get-you-in-a-taxi-honey"

 

[Betty Scarpino]

You guys can sort this out, become long lost pals, but just don't call me "Betty"

Referring to Paul Simon's song I'm assuming? . . . otherwise I'd have to decide wither or not I would want to be offended

Just giving you the opportunity to 'splain or withdraw your comment . . . before I call myself a lawyer. (Don't you just love that ambiguous statement!!)

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

 

[George Guadiane]

George,
I may well be getting confused on the Al S and Al H in your comment - Did you mean Al S has a reasonable concern, based on Al H having been on the nom. committee...?



I hope we all understand that this really isn't part of the process as outlined in the nomination procedure. The only people who have the ability to determine who continues the process to final candidacy is the nominating committee.

PS - George, you mentioned paid leave (your recent trip to Hawaii, I presume). Nervous breakdown from the June & July fiasco? Severe carpal tunnel? (I kid, I kid!)

I see that I put an S where an H should have been (or???) with the Al ID, but the end result is that there appears to be no actual defined criteria for the nominating committee beyond the written desire and two letters of support (delivered on time) and the limit of two candidates per open slot...

No background check, no social/moral requirements... Seems arbitrary and open to misuse.

Funny, I managed to stay in the fray through all of the June/July stuff (sometimes by the skin of my teeth and the good graces of a VERY understanding moderators corps), but got a "time out" for something I was actually trying not to do (even the last version was redacted) after that was pretty much done.
I should say, that there does seem to be more than a bit of "bad blood" still flowing in the streets of AAW. Some education comes harder than other, I guess.

In any event, hands still work. I'm never sure about my mental state, on the other hand.

 

[Mark Mandell]

Referring to Paul Simon's song I'm assuming? . . . otherwise I'd have to decide wither or not I would want to be offended

Just giving you the opportunity to 'splain or withdraw your comment . . . before I call myself a lawyer. (Don't you just love that ambiguous statement!!)

Betty Scarpino, editor, AW

Ah, Graceland, one of the all-time great albums.

Continuing the non requiter, I call MYself a lawyer, but if I can call you Betty, we can call THEM Al. Ba dumdum- dum, ba bumbumbum-dum

 

[Al Stramiello]

Don't leave out Al-fred, Al-an, and my favorite

"Al-be-down-to-get-you-in-a-taxi-honey"

Where are the mods when I need them????

 

[JonathanH]

Ah, Graceland, one of the all-time great albums.

Continuing the non requiter, I call MYself a lawyer, but if I can call you Betty, we can call THEM Al. Ba dumdum- dum, ba bumbumbum-dum

Mark; You hit a soft spot with me. Here’s the deal, if you will allow that “Rhythm of the Saints†is as least as great as “Graceland†and two of the albums best ever made, I will share a bottle 18yr old single malt Scotch if you should travel down my way. We can kick back, have a few and listen to both albums. Now the real test; Who was the best drummer ever???
Jonathan

 

[Mark Mandell]

Mark; You hit a soft spot with me. Here’s the deal, if you will allow that “Rhythm of the Saints†is as least as great as “Graceland†and two of the albums best ever made, I will share a bottle 18yr old single malt Scotch if you should travel down my way. We can kick back, have a few and listen to both albums. Now the real test; Who was the best drummer ever???
Jonathan

No No Jonathan, I learned long ago not to bet on artists. To much depends on context, especially among musicians.

I've watched people actually debate the merits of Hendrix vs Clapton vs Lightin' at a party. So I sat them on the couch and put on some Sandy Bull. Uh huh, they said "hmmmm. . ."

 

[JonathanH]

No No Jonathan, I learned long ago not to bet on artists. To much depends on context, especially among musicians.

I've watched people actually debate the merits of Hendrix vs Clapton vs Lightin' at a party. So I sat them on the couch and put on some Sandy Bull. Uh huh, they said "hmmmm. . ."

Buddy Rich.......

 

[Pope]

Drummer

Ah, c'mon, got to be Ringo.