So as you know, I'm on the Governance Task Force. I'd like some input:
What are the pros and cons to making the Development, Membership, and Communications Officers elected by the whole membership instead of appointed by the Chair with the approval of the AMC?
11 comments:
Pro - it opens up the positions to all of American Mensa, not just the people known to the Chair.
Con: It makes them political positions that need to worry about being elected and perform the job with the election in mind. Communications, Development, and Membership should be filled by professionals who understand the specific arena.
It creates the very real possibility that these positions are filled by individuals without the appropriate and necessary skills/talents.
It would put someone in a position for two years, who, currently, if not competent or fails to do the job, is easily replaceable.
Disclaimer: I am the current Development Officer.
I would not have run for this position in a previous election. I believe the current Chair didn't know me from Adam when I was selected based on skills and background.
I tend to agree with Bob's comments regarding the desirability for filling skill positions through appointment. However, I do not see a particular need for these postions to be voting members of AMC. Indeed, that responsibility and the attendant need to be educated regarding a broad range of issues could be a distraction away from the tasks for which the appointment was made.
I would like to hear an argument mounted for full voting rights to persuade me from this view, if possible.
If we can fill the position of Treasurer by election, as we do, then we can fill any other AMC position requiring a specific skillset by election.
Pro: Along with truly opening up the positions to the full membership (rather than just to those people known directly or via 1 degree of separation to the AMC), it also takes away the leverage that the AMC Chair theoretically has over the appointees (whether it's "taken advantage of" often is a different matter - I know not). I have heard it said on several occasions that having such theoretical sway over the appointees (helping "stack" votes in the Chairman's direction) was an intended effect. I don't know if that's correct, but the theory does work, even though I know that is certainly not always the case with the current appointees and AMC Chair.
Con: People "unqualified" for the position can take office if elected rather than appointed. However, that's still eminently possible with the current system, so that argument doesn't really have any major merit to it, IMO. After all, have ALL of these such officers during their initial appointment to the respective offices had such professional experience (or other organizational experience) sufficient towards the role to consider it akin to the professional appointments like the various legal counsel?
Also, for those who are inclined towards considering these more like professional offices which should be appointed, what would be your argument (or do you even have one) for not making the Treasurer into an appointed position?
How will having those positions elected instead of appointed improve Mensa?
I assert that no one ever won office based on an honest accounting of their skills. Elections are how you get secretaries who refuse to take minutes and RVCs who refuse to wear pants.
Note to self: remember to wear pants at the next AMC meeting.
Within Mensa, are you limiting your comments to AMC? Or AMC and even local group elections? Because, the overwhelming consensus from the local group Ombudsmen (at least those who have actually said anything) is that the discussions, which included an honest accounting of the various candidates' skills, philosophies, and temperament (such as is visible via e-mails, anyway) for the candidates for National Ombudsman, were highly informative.
This is not a comment directed at our current Treasurer but, rather, the position of Treasurer: it is a supervisory and policy-oriented position. The real treasury work is done by National Office staff. The Treasurer rarely, if ever, signs checks and does not do the books.
That being said, I'd have no problem with it being an appointed office.
As to the current appointed offices: the question of them having a vote is, well, not such a big question. In the end, I think it doesn't make a bit of difference either way and it should not make a difference to a member going about their daily Mensa business. I will say, however, that some people will not take such an appointment without a vote so I lean on the side of allowing the vote to maximize the candidacy group.
Wait... Pants are optional?
Post a Comment