I was responding to comments from yesterday's post, but decided to just make it a new post.
For what it's worth, I doubt I'd ever have thought to run for Communications Officer. Would I do this job if I couldn't speak and vote as a equal with the rest of the AMC? I'm not sure. I like to think I bring useful expertise to the table, but getting to vote is not the pay-off for me, that's for certain.
And if it's a matter of no one should vote who isn't chosen by their constituents, then should we continue to allow 60% of RVCs to vote, despite the fact that they were, in some sense, not elected by their regions? At least in the case of the appointees, there are 17 people voting to put them in office. How many people voted for the uncontested RVCs?
3 comments:
Since an RVC represents about 1/10 as many members as a Treasurer or a Chair, maybe an RVC should have 1/10 of a vote.
The Comm, Membership, and Dvlpmnt Officers are significantly involved in day-to-day details, and involved with staff and operations at a level likely not approached by most RVCs.
It takes a great deal of time.
These positions are important enough that they should not be AMC advisory positions but should continue to be part of policy and governance decision making.
When I was asked if I would consider Development, the Chair did not personally know me.
When I reviewed and considered the position before giving my reply, three things came into play.
1. It looked as if the position description had been written for someone with my background and skills.
2. The position would have impact by being a peer on the AMC with a voice, rather than advisory.
3. It was agreed that my perspective and voice and vote was my own. And so it has been, so it will be.
I would not have accepted the position and the workload without those.
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would want to turn the business positions on the AMC into popularity contests. You have competent people now.
Bob Bevard
False choice there, Robin. The simple fact is that when a race is uncontested, it is because all other people who could theoretically run for office have decided (i.e., "voted") not to run and have not (successfully) wrangled anyone else into running against the sole candidate, either. They have thereby cast their lot for the only choice they have individually and collectively permitted themselves to have: the sole candidate. Given that, such a candidate can be more appropriately viewed as having been unanimously elected by his constituents.
Post a Comment