AACA Board Of Directors decision on election process

[Guest]

John ~ I had honestly intended to bow out on this one, but at your urging I will remain active.<P>If the membership had any idea of these abuses they would most likely vote those individuals out of office. But how would they ever know?<P>No, this must be handled from within the Board. <P>First, I know of no written code of ethics for Directors. It is all unwritten and Directors are expected to have a sense of propriety about themselves. Most do and are fine, upstanding and honorable individuals.<BR>But there are a few Clintons around who just seem to have no sense of honor or duty.<P>So what procedure is there for improvement of the breed. There is the Past Presidents Advisory Council, composed of those Past Presidents still serving on the Board. It is their job to advise, council, attempt to correct bad behavior in any form and finnally if all else fails to recommend that the individual in question NOT be renominated.<P>Then it is up to the Nominations Committee to follow through. It HAS happened in the past, not often but it has happened. It really takes backbone on the part of both groups.<P>Enough for now. I will follow up if there is interest expressed.<P>Howard<P>

[Guest]

John ~ After re-reading your last post, I am prompted to make another point. You say that there is an opportunity to elect three new Directors each year. That depends on the number of incumbents seeking reelection and the total number of candidates on the ballot. <P>This coming year two directors will retire after serving 15 years [the limit]. If ten are nominated and only five of the seven incumbents are able to run, then there is the possibility of five new people being elected. It ain't gonna happen, but it is possible.<P>This brings me back to the beginning. Of those last two votes I will be required to cast, one or both might have to go to an unsuitable incumbent or maybe an unsuitable non incumbent. After all there might be some of questionable value among the non incumbent candidates. <P>That is why I feel so strongly about adopting the 5/7 rule. Please don't force us to vote for people just to fill a ballot.<P>So after this discussion, a little quiz.<P>What is the most important committee on the AACA Board of Directors?<P>How about your answers to this one folks<P>Howard

[John N. Packard]

Howard,<BR> That's an easy one to answer. Based upon this thread, the Nominations Committee! I received a Code of Ethics book for the Museum Directors. I haven't studied it; but would think that a similar document would be appropriate for the AACA Board as well.<P>jnp

[ronbarn]

The AACA Director's Handbook is reasonably comprehensive in identifying what is expected of National Directors. However, you can tell someone to excercise "good judgement" all day long and if they do not understand the term inherently, then how do they comply?<P>Howard raises a good question re what is the most important committee. The nominating committee certainly is one. There are three that deserve consideration - Regions, Membership and Publications. Why you ask? These committees must work closely with and understand the needs and desires of the AACA membership in order to do their job right. And rapidly gaining on those three is the Internet Committee with responsibilities not only for this web site but also now evaluating all of the region and chapter websites.<P>The Board must know the membership to do their job. As a member of that group for 15 years (recently retired) the guiding principle I tried to use for any consideration was what is in the best interests of the membership.

[Guest]

A gold star for all those who said or thought NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE.<P>Ron is correct about the importance of those other committees, but what good are those committees unless the very best people are on the Board to staff them.<P>How do you get the best people. The NOMINATIONS COMMITTEE has the tough of job of finding them and determining that they are the persons for the job of Director.<P>I served and chaired that committee several times while on the Board. We nominated some great leaders and sad to say screwed up a few times. There were occasions where the committee should have NOT renominated incumbents, but just couldn't seem to make that tough decision.. Too bad, it hurt us. We got the return of a poor incumbent at the expense of some pretty promising new people. How many times will a good person allow himself to be nominated only to lose to a less than dedicated incumbent?<P>So I stand on my judgment that the nominations committee is the MOST important committee. The members of that committee <BR>should be carefully selected and not just placed there because they "have never had that job before."<P>Now assuming that the Nominations Committee has done the best job possible, how about letting we members have a little more freedom of choice. In the event the committee fails to drop a bad Director don't put us in the position of having to vote for that person to fulfill the "vote for 7" rule. <P>Give us an option. Give us 5/7.<P>Anyone want a petition?<P>Howard

[Rick Hoover]

I was going to say the REFRESHMENTS COMMITTEE! (glad I didn't) <P>Howard, I'll take a petition for over at the next Hershey Region meeting. Let's see what happens.<P>Rick

[Guest rcirilli]

Rick, I should have known !

[Guest]

Gads - will anyone be reading this way down at the end of this HOT TOPIC?? Got a couple of observations to share:<BR> First, in the beginning of this, folks were talking about the chap at the Annual Meeting speaking up inappropriately during the General Membership Meeting. I agree with those who say that meeting is for the general membership to be informed and to have a voice and for the National folks to offer the state-of-the-club address. And, I would liken AACA's meeting to any other SHAREHOLDERS meeting of any other (public, for profit) corporation, AACA just has "members" for a non-profit organizaton.<BR> Correct me if I'm wrong, but if shareholders or the public wish to speak during an company's "Annual Meeting" I believe the proper procedure is to write the Secretary (or designee) of that organization and request the opportunity to be heard and to indicate the subject matter. An "appointment" in the agenda is made, usually with a stated time limit to speak.<BR> I would think, given the time constraints of the Annual Meeting, this would be an appropriate procedure to follow. AACA would know who was going to speak, for how long, what about, and could fashion the appropriate response. Just a suggestion. <BR> Next - I totally support the vote for 5, not more than 7 ballot. Actually, I support the vote, even it is for one!! I am of the belief Americans should be able to vote for who they want to vote for and not be FORCED to vote for who they do not want to. <BR> It is only my observation, mind you, but I believe AACA to be a "free" vote that disqualifies you if you don't vote for the right NUMBER of people. I do not think that my vote should be invalid because I do not choose to vote for the specified NUMBER of people who have been nominated to serve. It is not a personal statement against or for any of the candidates, but freedom of choice, I think. I don't vote for the Sheriff, or a Councilman, or the county tax collector if I don't want to, but my vote for President and judge still counts. My vote should not have anything to do with NUMBERS; my vote should have to do with having a voice. <BR> I think everyone's vote should be counted when that person chooses to vote.<BR> Voting for 5 is a major step toward correcting a ballot structure that is currently flawed. <BR>

[Guest]

I've tried to stay out of this because I have never believed in the mandatory 7 vote or else you're disqualified rule. And I've rarely voted for that reason. While the bios are nice, I tend not to vote for people I don't know or am not familiar with. So I'm sure not going to vote for one or two or three candidates just because of the mandatory 7 rule. Every year I see comments about how few AACA members acutally vote for the Directors slate - it's usually around 2,500 +/-or about 4% to 5% if memory serves me correctly. I think we ought to be looking for constructive ways to increase member voting participation and that's why I support Howard's petition as a good move in that direction. Why not just have one vote per member with the slate organized by geographic divisions on alternating years?

[Guest]

Another thing - Thank You Doug Drake for giving us a timely, comprehensive report.<BR>Your participation as a DFer is most welcome and appreciated by all of us. Please continue to visit as much as your schedule as Prez allows.

[John N. Packard]

Caddyx5,<BR> Beg to differ, you are voting for a slate of directors; not for a single office.<P>Ted,<BR> I think your vote count is low by a factor of 4; albeit still a small percentage of the total membership.<P>jnp

[ronbarn]

CaddyX5 et al - hvs, whose comments you have read on this thread several times, made a profound statement when he was President back in 1987. He instructed the National Directors to treat their position and conduct business as if AACA was a multimillion dollar corporation with 50,000 (that was the number of members at that time) shareholders. I was a very junior Director at that time, but that single statement put a new perspective on the responsibilities I had assumed.<P>Your comment regarding the appropriate way to present an argument/question/comment from the floor is very appropriate. We have never done that since there never seemed to be a need. Traditionally, this meeting was a one-way transmission of highlights of the year. We have grown significantly and matured as an organization. It is probably time that the more formal approach you suggest be implemented. Am sure that Doug Drake will read these comments and deal with them as he feels appropriate. Good idea - thanx.<P>I have maintained silence regarding the subject of this thread till now since as a Board member I felt compelled to keep an open objective position. I will now state, as a former Director, I agree that AACA should consider a change in the voting policy. Voting for 1 to 7 may be to radical, but we should certainly consider the minimum of 5 - maximum of 7 proposal. I have personally known most of the candidates nominated over the last 15 years and worked with all of the incumbents during that time. There were times when, in order to meet the seven required votes that I voted for individuals that I would have preferred not to get elected. And there may have been times when some would have preferred not to have to vote for me. However, I will state that if I had perceived that I was being elected to a board where my presence was not welcome, I would never have consented to nomination.

[Guest SalG (Sal Grenci)]

I will jump in after a few days away from my screen. Along with the 5 out of 7 which I support, I think the nominating committee should broaden its cricle and reach out to some of the folks who are regulars on the DF.<P>Peter G, smart, willing to put his $ where his mouth is (start up cost and upkeep of this site) and from the West.<BR>Model A Hal, well informed and active hear and locally.<BR>Rick Hoover, great with tech area, active and a stones throw from HQ.<BR>Thomas Borches, young and into the real old metal, but a little too far away.<BR>Steve Boetteger, another active and smart guy.

[John N. Packard]

After all is said and done, even with the proposed 5/7 rule don't a total of seven get elected? I guess the comfort is not contributing to the undesired result?<P>jnp

[ronbarn]

John, Am not sure if your question was rhetorical or not, but YES, regardless of the procedure, seven directors are elected each year. Ron

[Guest]

Some people should not be turned loose with a computer. It took me 2 days to figure out that there was a PAGE 2 to this thread. I saw my bulb was lit, but kept wondering why nothing new appeared. As it is said, "Confession is good for the soul." even if it sometimes reveals ones inadequacies. <P>Father Ron, I was Prez in '88 & '89, so I must have said that in '88. I believe that it is even more of a statement of our position in the real world today than it was in '88. Our hobby organization has grown and is far more complex.<P>Howard<P><p>[This message has been edited by hvs (edited 02-24-2001).]

[ronbarn]

Howard, sorry 'bout year. I believe it was your first year, so that should have been '88. Nevertheless I remembered it and you are right, today the sentiment even makes more sense. Thanx.

[Guest]

One of the down sides of being away from the computer for a while is that you forget your password!<P><BR>Doug, <P>Thank you for starting this thread. Except for Father Ron, Terry and Earl, I wasn't sure if anyone was paying attention. Being that I was not able to attend the annual meeting, I wasn't sure what was happening other than I knew the issue was voted down. I'm sure even those in attendance didn't know the reservations of the directors. Much has been said on this matter and I'm not sure I can say anything differently or shed light on any issue, but I will still throw in my 2 cents.<P><BR>The only way any of us know each other is by attending national events. Just because I belong to an organization, I would never know Ron or Howard or anyone else if I didn't go to the meets and tours. The downside to this is that I can't make every event and may not get the chance to know or at least be introduced to nominees. Therefore, how can I make a judgement as to whether someone should be a leader of this organization? Just because the Nominating Committee submitted their name? If that be the case, then we only need 7 names on the ballot. The adverse is that I know an incumbent and feel they are "deserving" of the position. I am now forced to vote or have my ballot dismissed.<P>As far as seven not being voted in, I'm sure Marilyn Vos Savant, could give us the probability of that happening, but every candidate is going to receive some percentage. If they wouldn't, why would the nominating committee want their name on the ballot? I'm not in favor of forcing representation in the central or western divisions by stacking the ballot either. A nominee should be entered on their qualifications, not because there from a certain area. I'm not saying this is done all the time, but I'll bet it has happened. That doesn't make a stronger club, that only satisfies quotas. Also, how has the present system vindicated the short comings of few central and western directors? It appears to me that it has done nothing to remedy the problem, if it is a problem. Maybe the candidates aren't as viable as some may think.<P><BR>Doesn't it seem odd that approximately 15% of the membership participates in the election? Could it be that that's close to the number attending the activities? That they're the ones getting to know other members? Or would more people vote if they could vote for less than the 7 required? Is a candidate from a smaller division eliminated because those voting for him/her<BR>must vote for the "7" giving an additional vote to another person, thus negating their vote(I hope some of you follow that)? <P>I have some other thoughts, but I'm running out of time. I must get back to work. One last thing, does the nominating committee find out the vote count so they can determine whether a candidate should be considered again if they're not successful?<BR>

[Guest]

SalG,<P>In answer to your question of how someone is nominated to the board - in my case, it all started with a strong interest in my local region and volunteering to do jobs. I found myself holding every officer position in my region. While I was Region President, our region was planning a National Meet, of which I was Meet Chairman; this gave me exposure to meeting national officers and various national chairmen. <P>I was asked to participant at the Annual Meeting as a Seminar Panelist a couple of times. In fact, Ron B. was VP Regions at the time and he was one of the directors who asked me to be a panelist. Through this, I received more recognition by the general membership and the board. Timing is everything and I was at the right place at the right time. The board wanted more involvement from women in the club; since I was beginning to be noticed as an enthusiastic member who was very active on a regional level, attending many national meets and tours, and was also involved in judging, I was offered the position as Chairman of National Activities in the Southeast Division. Howard Scotland was AACA President at that time and he told me that if I did a good job, it perhaps could be a stepping stone to being nominated to the board in the future. The key word is ?perhaps.?<P>In closing, I would like to say how much I have enjoyed this thread on the vote for 7 issue ? keep up the good dialogue.<P>JanetR<BR><P>------------------<BR>JanetR

[Dynaflash8]

I may be odd, but I've voted in every election since 1962. But, I must admit, I knew most of the people (at least the incumbents) after 1965, when I attended my first Philadelphia. And, I've attended every one since then. Of course that may not always have helped them. I was unable to attend any National Meet other than Hershey as a vendor until 1975. Well, maybe Hagerstown as as a flea market vendor in '72 or so. This was because of funds and the vintage of my collector cars, which were not allowed. As early as 1965 and 1966 I got up at the Annual Meeting and aired the concerns I had at the time about the 1935 cutoff. And except for a minor change in 1968 it still took until 1975 for it to get fixed. It should not go without saying that this whole organization has come a long way since 1985 or so, or even 1975. Speaking from experience, I can say we owe a lot to hvs, ronbarn and others who were in the forefront of those progressive years. I do believe the greatness of AACA is brought about by a combination of progressive ideas and a true appreciation of the tradition and history that is also important in this organization. It's sort of like the founding fathers of the USA, they sure must have been smart guys. Somebody long ago laid the groundwork that made this organization so great, the best. But, it was a better idea, voted in 1974 and activated in 1975 to offer AACA to all vehicles 25 years and older that has made this organization prosper even moreso in these past 25 years. I did my part to show the leaders this was a necessary change. Some heard me, even before the days of hvs and ronbarn. They made a tough decision, but they stood up to it. I think history has proven those who made this move should go into the books as great leaders of AACA. And yes, a dozen years later term limits was a good idea, too. One can't help but wear out eventually. But about this voting procedure, why did they set the ballot process up this way? I have no idea. I've been doing this for 39 years and I just voted for those who, in their bios, seemed to embrace ideas closest to my own. I voted for ronbarn the first time because his bio said his first car was a '39 Chrysler. That may not have been a good reason, but it made him part of my generation and I felt he would be approachable concerning the collectability of the cars that I loved. The views people hold and their willingness to work are important too, not just their smile or a pat on the back. Maybe this ballot idea, too, is an idea whose time has come. There is more mobility now. Thirty years ago, Directors visited nearby Regions for the Annual Meeting. Today they travel all over the country to a doze Meets that didn't exist in 1965. I'm not from Missouri, but I am still sitting back and listening, reading, and letting everyone have the opportunity to "show me". But remember too, haste makes waste. You can never go back. So don't find too much fault in the embracing of careful consideration, just so long as the review does't take 10 years. Thanks to what has taken place over the past 20 years, it is my belief that today the leaders of this organization do their best to represent the members as they too would wish to be represented. I hope I have made some sense here.