Annual Report (2004)
ARLIS/NA Nominating Committee

Submitted by:    Betsy Peck Learned

                         elearned@rwu.edu

                         401-254-3625

                         401-254-3631 (FAX)

2004 Nominating Committee members:

Betsy Peck Learned, Chair

Jane Devine-Mejia

Susan Flanagan

Marilyn Russell

Joan Stahl

Jeanne Brown, Executive Board Liaison

The 2004 Nominating Committee was charged with identifying a slate of officers for the 2005 ARLIS/NA Executive Board including the following positions: Vice President/President-Elect, Secretary, Northeast Regional Representative, South Regional Representative, and Midwest Regional Representative. The process was completed over a six-month period following Article IX of the Society’s bylaws, section C-26 of the Policy Manual, and the timeline devised by the previous Nominating Committee Chair, Eumie Imm Stroukoff.  Following no nominations forthcoming from the membership, the Board approved the following slate of candidates who were announced to the membership via ARLIS-L on September 16, 2004.

Vice-President/President-Elect…………………………Ann Whiteside

Secretary…………………………………………………………..Eumie Imm Stroukoff

Northeast Regional Representative………………….Carole Ann Fabian

South Regional Representative………………………..Heather Ball

Midwest Regional Representative…………………….Leigh Gates

The process

The committee identified a list of possible candidates prior to the New York conference. At the conference each candidate was approached and invited to submit applications for a specific office.  The committee met later in the conference to exchange information regarding the candidates’ responses and to narrow down the list.  It was problematic when several candidates expressed their desire to run for a different office than the one the committee had considered for them. The result was that by the end of the conference there was an unbalanced (and large) number of candidates for each Executive Board position.  The committee concluded that for this year an election might have yielded an Executive Board more reflective of the views of the ARLIS/NA membership than the selection by a Nominating Committee.

The committee was concerned that the identification of potential candidates was overly subjective, based largely on committee members’ past experience with the candidates and remarks from Board members.  The committee was concerned that members unknown to the committee wishing to serve may not have been identified.  This was later compounded by the fact that the past practice of the Nominating Committee was to announce the slate at the same time that it solicited nominations by petition from the membership via ARLIS-L.  The committee felt that those members wishing to nominate by petition would be deterred from competing with a known slate.  However, the bylaws indicated that nominations by petition should precede the announcement of the slate.  After discussion with Jeanne Brown, and former Nominating Committee Chairs, Roger Lawson and Eumie Imm Stroukoff, the committee decided to follow the bylaws and announce the slate after the deadline for nominations and following approval by the Executive Board.

The committee evaluated the candidates using criteria devised by the former Nominating Committees.  The criteria heavily weighted the candidate’s relevant job experience and leadership experience within ARLIS/NA. The committee members found the evaluation process difficult as the candidates were generally equally qualified. Also, for some positions, such as the Regional Representatives, ARLIS leadership experience may not be necessary, and newer members would be welcome.  After discussion with Jeanne Brown, it was determined that a better process would be to establish specific criteria for each Executive Board position.  For example, a Vice President/President Elect might require management experience, whereas a Regional Representative would need to excel at communication.

Another problem occurred when a potential candidate assumed the process was an appointment rather than a selection. After being asked to apply, the candidate announced to another candidate her appointment, thereby causing the other candidate to withdraw. The Nominating Committee needs to make the membership better aware of the change in process from an election to a slate.

Recommendations

The committee suggests the following changes to the nominating process to ensure fairness and to make the Executive Board more reflective of the membership.  The timeline will be revised for the incoming committee based on the Executive Board’s consideration of the following changes: 

  1. Interest in serving on the Executive Board should be solicited prior to the conference via an ARLIS-L announcement by the new Nominating Committee chair.  The announcement would identify the committee members and describe the nominating process, including the deadlines for application and for nominating by petition. It would encourage interested members to approach the committee members at the conference or in advance via phone or email.
  2. The 2005 committee would determine a list of potential candidates in addition to those who identified themselves, as in the past.
  3. Interviews could be set up prior to the conference with interested members.
  4. Position qualifications/skills for each Executive Board position should be established by the committee prior to the conference so that the committee members understand what they are seeking for each position.
  5. The committee members would ask for members to submit application materials (CVs and references) after they had drawn up a short list rather than requesting materials from all interested members.
  6. A statement of goals should be required with a candidate’s application, rather than solicited later for the AWS following Board approval.
  7. The committee asks the Executive Board to discuss whether in the event that there are multiple candidates for each position the Executive Board could call for an election rather than a slate.