0. On balance I am definitely opposed to the idea of requiring position
statements from board candidates. It politicizes the election process
without a clear offsetting benefit of equal weight.
1. I still do not what is broken to cause this question to be considered.
I have asked for that and no info has been forthcoming. So I will provide
my responses to the question as rephrased (and narrowed).
2. General. I believe the question is not phrased properly. I believe the
need that someone perceives is: how can we provide better information to
the membership so they can make a better decision. Somewhere, somhow,
somone jumped to the conclusion that position statements is the answer.
Position statements may or may not help. But what about the larger question
of how to provide better information about the candidates -- which may or
may not include a set of positoin statements. Is there something else the
nominating committee can do to fill the perceived vacuum.
3. Benefit of Position Statements. They can provide a bit of additional
information about what the candidates think about certain issues. However,
this thinking is, by definition, in a vacuum. The candidates cannot
possible know in advance the multitude of issues the nature of which could
not divined in advance. Also, often the candidates are not in full command
of the governing facts on certain issues. With these limitations, position
statements may be helpful..... although it is not abundantly clear that
they will really help.
4. Disadvantage of position statements. In my opinion such a move smacks
too much of campaigning. I do not believe that candidates should have to
campaign for these positions, however minutely. This serves to politicize
the process. Remember these are positions of "unpaid" service to the
membership of the CAS. Politicizing the process can only serve to shift the
focus from (a) a desire to serve the membership as a director to (b) the
need to "look good" in order to be elected. The focus thus is subtly
shifted from "a desire to serve" to "wanting to look good so that one can
get elected." Completely off the mark.
5. One final comment. It seems to me that if the Nominating Committee does
its work well, then one can randomly pick any four candidates from the
proposed slate and do just as well. Remember that the Nominating Committee
is seeking people who will do a good job representing the interests of the
membership -- working primarily with the past record of service of the
would-be-nominees. Thus the principal ingredient going forward is the past
track record of the individual. What could be better. Having a positoin
statement goes in a completely different direction. The only counter
example I can give the committee is the election of Adolph Hitler. He was
elected by a plebiscite. His positoins were well known and well
communicated. Now, did any of that make a difference in how he managed the
affairs of the Third Reich when he was in office? I think not. Thus I say
that the character of the candidates is the most important ingredient we
need to be looking for. ANd what illustrates that better than the past
track record of the candidates and the knowledge of the Nominating Committee
of these people. For me that is plenty of assurance. In fact there is very
little that the Nominating Committee can do to make the candidates better
known to the electorate!!! This is an unhappy fact of the situation. Given
that, where would one place "their bet", so to speak I would put it in the
hands of the Nominating Committee, people who have served selflessly for
twenty or more years per.
Let us let this issue alone. It doesn't really advance the cause much. It
sounds good, it feels good, but it has no practical positive impact and
likely will have a negative impact by politicizing the process. And once we
go down that path, where do we stop? Are campaigns far behind. Button.
Slogans. The difference between position statements and all these things is
very thin.
I wish the committee high clarity of thinking as it goes about its work.
Funny, this committee was not elected, its members did not have to publish
position statements or anything of the sort. Yet I trust the judgment of
those who appointed this committee and I am confident the commitee will do
an honorable and objective job in sorting out the input as it develops its
recommendations. Well, this comparison is just one eyelash away from the
issue before the committee. Happy New Year.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
===============================================
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to caslists@lists.casact.org
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.