Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Wed, 7 Feb 1996 20:55:47 -0500
On Feb 07, 1996 12:04:11, 'Kathie Cerveny <kathie@EECS.NWU.EDU>' wrote:
>If there is ONE dissension, the slate is down.
You seem to be saying that the vote must be unanimous. That is not the
case. It is true that the vote is either for or against the entire slate,
but the slate need only get a majority of the vote to be elected.
>If the slate is down, it is down for 30 days.
Just because the district slate is voted down does NOT mean the District
shuts down. The old committee serves until their replacements are elected
and qualified. Thus, the old committee continues to run the district. If
the district recharters in the interim then I would guess that it would be
the old committee that would recharter, pending subsequent replacement with
the new committee.
>ALL rules pertaining to the council annual nomination and election
procedures applies >if and where nothing different is written within the
COUNCIL/DISTRICT ANNUAL >NOMINATING AND ELECTION PROCEDURES (BLUE PAPER).
I believe that councils can adopt rules and regulations that differ from
those in the national material. I remember reading that those rules apply
in the absence of contradictory rules adopted by the council.
>It the district holds their annual election less than 30 days to
>12/31 of any year, than the district will lapse PRIOR to the required 30
>days for the NOMINATING COMMITTEE to address the problem that brought
>the downed slate.
Not every District or Council recharter on a calendar year, to the best of
my knowledge. We recharter in June and hold the elections for MAL's at our
May meeting. However, the Council bylaws provide that the terms of the
District Chairman does not start until September.
>The election procedure in BSA is NOT the same as other organizations it
Let's see, what it REALLY is is totally undemocratic. There is absolutely
NO provision for an opposition to any recommendation of the nominating
committee, either for MAL or for Chairman or Vice-chairman.
>4. The committee solicits for nominations for the district committee
>members-at-large (but are NOT allowed to solicit for positions on the
I suppose by this you mean that the nominating committee cannot recruit an
Advancement Chairman, for example, because it is the District Chairman's
job to select his operating committee chairmen. While I certainly agree
with this in theory, in practice very often discussions are held prior to
the nominations and, unfortunately, the nominating committee ends up
dealing with all of the "I won't hold this position if so and so is the
District Chairman" or "unless so and so has this position" etc.
>a. First the vote BY the members-at-large from the previous annual
>slate vote on the proposed slate for members-at-large. (voice or written
ballot is >allowed.) If a written ballot is used, only members of the
nominating >committee may handle the ballots, count, etc.
A couple of points. First, the people who vote in this election are ALL
the members of the old District Committee - the old MAL's AND all the CORs.
Second, it is my understanding that these ballots are to be conducted
following Robert's Rules. Thus, the ballot is by voice vote or show of
hands, UNLESS a motion is made for a secret ballot, in which case the
secret ballot motion MUST be approved by a majority, by voice vote or show
of hands. It is NOT true that any ONE member of the group can force a
secret ballot merely by demanding it.
>The vote MUST be an all or nothing as explained earlier.
All or nothing meaning the entire slate approved by a majority of those
present and voting.
>b. Once the members-at-large are voted in - then - the district chairman
can >be voted on. IF the district chairman candidate (who must be on
the new >members-at-large slate) does not get an all or nothing
vote, he/she is not >elected, but the district does not close
>c. ALL district vice-chairmen are also on the SAME slate and SAME
>vote as the district chairman. So again - all or nothing vote.
Yes, again the entire slate of officers gets voted on at one time, with a
majority vote being required to elect. However, this time it is the NEW
committee which votes, not the OLD committee which voted for the NEW
>We used to refer to our unique election process as a Democratic
dictatorship. But >--- really --- it gets the job done -- and the tenure
IS only one year at a time, >guys - so if you don't like someone, get them
out through the proper channels -- >present your case to the next
To call it a democratic dictatorship is being charitable. No matter what
you do, if the nominating committee chooses to keep somebody on the ballot
there is no effective recourse. I have never seen either a committee slate
or an officer slate voted down. It is really very similar to the old
communist one party system.
The message it sends is that the organization is afraid to allow the same
democratic methods that it tells its troops to use to select their leaders
to select the district's leaders. Not a very positive message, is it. I
know you feel otherwise, but you are on the inside, as am I, but if you sit
back and reflect on it, what possible justification can be given for this
method? Preventing dissension? I believe it fosters it because it
prevents any of this from getting out in the open for discussion.
>By the way -- the nominating committee are CHARGED by the Council
>and District Chairman to SPEAK to each person who is being considered, and
MAY ask >which of the three functions the district committee is charged to
handle, they would >be interested in working with --- remembering that
EVERY member-at-large must be >assigned to one of those 3 functions:
membership/program/finance. Commissioners are >separately registered and
are never the responsibility of the district committee.
MUST be assigned to one of the three? Really? Does it REALLY say that?
Bruce E. Cobern
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City