There is a superseding Endorsement Standing Rule (click here) that replaces Appendix C in the by laws, but the online version of the bylaws has not been updated. It includes a detailed timeline and specific steps including appointing an ad hoc endorsetment committee. The old SR just suggested a committee. I believe the updated version addresses all of the issues that Tekla identifies – see below my comments. However, we should go over the current version and see if it can be improived.
One critical issue is that a comprehensive endorsement process is severely limited by the time that filing closes and the actual election takes place given the monthly cycle of club meetings.
The Endorsement is a Standing Rule. Changing a standing rule does not constitute a change in the bylaws. That is why it was written as a standing rule. As such, the exec com can make any changes that are deemed necessary without going through a by change procedure.
Tekla’s Notes on IMDC Endorsement Process
“The Executive Committee may place consideration of endorsement of candidates for public office before the membership. The membership may vote to direct the Executive Committee to place consideration of candidates for public office before the membership of a subsequent meeting. “ (Endorsement Standing Rule -Appendix C )
This seems confusing to me. Does it mean the Executive Committee (hereafter abbreviated to EC) has to ask the membership before investigating to endorse a specific candidate? Does it mean that instead of that the EC can just go ahead with the investigative process without notifying the membership? Or does it mean that either of these things can happen and/or take the place of each other?
FMM > Both of these things can happen and/or take the place of each other – to read like this to make it explicit.
“ ...before the membership. <and/or> the membership may vote...
What I remember of our process this last election was: The candidates for Supervisorial seats (and other elections) presented at a membership meeting. I don’t remember endorsement being mentioned, but rather it seemed a general informational presentation to influence actual voting.
FMM > Yes, it was a candidates informational forum with only Dem candidates
Standing Rule -Appendix C > The Executive Committee may cause a questionnaire to be created and sent to candidates to solicit interest and information from the Candidates. The Executive Committee may delegate this task to a Standing Committee or Working Group.
FMM > In the updated version the Exec Com appoints an Ad Hoc committee
Somewhat later, the EC began talking about endorsements, sent out a questionnaire to the Candidates and finally a specific meeting was held, very shortly before the election, that performed the endorsement vote with the membership that showed up for that meeting.
FMM > Yes, this was mostly the work of the Endorsement Committee
Note: There was a quorum at that meeting see BY laws Art V
Suggestions for the preliminary process (not sure if this would mean modifying the By-laws, maybe not.
FMM >(see above re: standing rules)
FMM → The updated versiomn is very specific about the process: We did all of these before th primary election.
1 Before end of filing date, pay attention to who’s likely to run and note the Democrats.
Talk some possible strategies among the EC.
2. After end of filing, post the candidates for each office (Dems) on the website.
(Notifies membership)
3. EC develops questionnaire for each office.
Perhaps a sub-committee can be formed to do this and to collect other information about
the candidates, and also on who else is running.
4. Send questionnaire and invite candidates to present to membership. (Notifies candidates)
5. Hold a “Meet the Candidate” full membership meeting to allow candidates to sell themselves.
We did that - As you wrote above:
“The candidates for Supervisorial seats (and other elections) presented at a membership meeting. I don’t remember endorsement being mentioned, but rather it seemed a general informational presentation to influence actual voting.”
Encourage discussion among the membership after the presentations and questions, perhaps
after excusing the candidates. Call this a “Pre-endorsement Meeting” so its clear what its
purpose is, to prepare the membership to make an endorsement decision.
FMM – look at the timeline and notice how we are constrained in what we can do over the short time we have between close of filing and the election.
“When consideration for endorsement is properly placed before the membership,...”
ARTICLE V - MEMBER MEETINGS
Section 1. Regular meetings of the members will be held at a frequency, time and place to be determined by the Executive Committee.
Section 2.
-
At all meetings of the members, a quorum shall be:
-
Ten (10) other members in good standing and
-
Including four (4) members of the Executive Committee
-
-
Once a quorum is met, departure of one or more members shall not remove the quorum.
FMM >Any action of the “membership” means action taken at a meeting at which a quorum has been established; and that means at least 14 members including 4 exec com members.
Nowhere in the paragraph concerning placing the consideration for endorsement say that the “membership” in question is limited to those present in the endorsement meeting. It only mentions the “membership”, which to me seems to mean the entire membership. And then it talks about “at least 60% affirmative votes” but still does not clarify specifically that this would be 60% of membership present at the endorsement meeting. I recognize the difficulty with obtaining voting preference from absent members, and so I make the following suggestions, which can be to the process, and need not be an actual change to the bylaws, just a re-interpretation of them to make them more democratically fair.
-
Since it is very difficult to gather the members together in one meeting, a mass email to current members of the Clubs should be sent at least a week before the endorsement meeting to give them the questionnaire answers and to emphasize the importance of being present in the endorsement meeting to make the decision. A follow-up email should be sent the day of the meeting as a reminder.
FMM – We did both of these at the last election – well the followup was sent about a week before announcing the meeting. We also posted the responses to the questinoaire on the web site and links to them were included in the announcements
FMM - – See ARTICLE V - MEMBER MEETINGS Qurorum -
Reinterpret the “membership” phrase to mean the entire membership of the club.
FMM – Membership means all members in good standing – i.e. who have paid their yearly dues. -
Require a quorum of at least 60% of the membership (since 60% affirmative is required to endorse) to be present in order to hold endorsement elections.
FMM > Clarify, 60% yes vote of those present and voting, to endorse; which is NOT 60% of the membership.
FMM – 60% of 140 means we would need about 80 members present to endorse. The quorum established in the bylaws Art V was arrived at based on experience of what is possible.
If that seems impossible, make it a quorum of 50% Half of the membership being present would indicate the actual will of our members.
-
If a quorum cannot be reached, that means the Club membership chooses not to endorse.
FMM → yes they deserve to have their voice heard, but in order to heard, one must speak up. If members do not attend the meetings, then they are expressing their approval of whatever the members who do participate decide.
Perhaps these changes should be proposed in writing to the membership for ratification. This could be done through an email.
See above regarding changing standing rules.