Slating - yea or nay?

[33girl]

This was touched on in the "what would you change" thread but I didn't want to hijack it since it is an awesome thread. Several people said they would change their way of doing elections/slating.

When I was in school people let the nom comm know what they were interested in, the nom comm made their picks and presented them, we had nominations from the floor and then voted on each office. That was the old way. I've looked at our procedure now and honestly, I think the College of Cardinals has it easier when they pick the Pope!

I know some people cannot discuss this at all, so without getting into more detail than you feel comfy with, do you like your GLO's way of elections/slating or not?

[The_Nash]

our exec council slates who they think will do the best job, then opens up the floor for nominations.

[CarolinaCutie]

Without going into too much detail, I don't think that the slating committee is always completely representative of the chapter. But the CONCEPT of slating is a good idea, much better than just nominating all willy-nilly.

[AlphaFrog]

Nope, I don't think it's a good idea....our slate passed with one person in a job that people didn't want her in but we all know how much of a pin it is to go through individual postions so we passed it anyway... (although I don't think anyone else wanted the postion anyway)

[azdtaxi]

I do not like our slating process at all. We aren't even suppose to tell people what we would like to be. Of course with all girls there is always talk.

[Glitter650]

I *Pretty* much like our election process... but I think I'd like some qualifications placed on certain positions

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Here are the positives of slating:

1. Helps NM's know who may be good for a position if they don't know the older women well enough to vote on their own.

2. Encourages girls to run who may be too shy to otherwise.

I'll come back to the negatives later.

[astroAPhi]

I like the slating system. We do it the same way you did/do, 33girl, but we also let the membership have input before we do slate. I was head of Nominations Committee this past year and it was a great experience. And I'd like to think that we did a pretty good job because there was only like 3 positions that ended up differently than we slated people.

[sageofages]

Actually, if your organization using Robert's Rules of Order as it is parlimentary authority, Slating is what you do.

Robert's Rules indicates slating through a nominating committee is the preferred manner to achieve the highest possible individual to perform a position.

After a slate has been presented, then nomination by petition or from the floor is called for, in order to have a "contested" election.

In my experience, 99.999999% of the time, you are fortunate to have a full slate, let alone a contested election.

[33girl]

Originally posted by sageofages
In my experience, 99.999999% of the time, you are fortunate to have a full slate, let alone a contested election.

Do you mean as far as getting people to run???

[sageofages]

Originally posted by 33girl
Do you mean as far as getting people to run???

yes

[DeltaBetaBaby]

This can be the case in chapters where holding office may require a girl to live in the house beyond her ordinary obligation.

[Senusret I]

Bumping because I wanted to know what role (if any) advisors play in slating potential officers? I didn't want to make any assumptions based on recent posts I've read.

[emb021]

The benefits of having a Nominating Committee put forth a complete slate of candidates, is that you are assured that you do, in fact, have a complete slate.

Ideally, the NomCom should be a small group who should look at all possible candidates (ie, all who are eligable in the group) and decide who they think would be best for the org, AND check to ensure that the proposed candidate is willing to run.

Keep in mind that that is the ideal. The NomCom is not omnipoten. There may be other good candidates out there they are just no aware of. And there is always the issue that the NomCom may NOT select the right people, but fall victim to an 'old boys' network attitude.

As noted, once the NomCom reports the slate, nominations from the floor (ie the whole group) should be allowed. This ensure that other candidates who do want to run, who may have been overlooked by the NomCom, can be considered. One of the worse things your org can do is deny this and just elect the whole slate as a group, as if the NomCom is the group that picks your new officers and the group just 'approves' this.


Also, if your group uses Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority, you are not IN ANYWAY required to use a NomCom. An organization is always free to do things the way they want. RONR is always below your Bylaws and Special Rules of Order. (I'm a parliamentarian, btw)

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Bumping because I wanted to know what role (if any) advisors play in slating potential officers? I didn't want to make any assumptions based on recent posts I've read.

When I was the CCA, I also advised the Nominating Committee. I would usually not give personal input on the individual who was being discussed for a certain position unless I had worked with her in a previous advisory role, but I would say what the responsibilities of the various officer positions were and (IME) what type of personality would be a good fit for that position. The Nominating Chair and her committee always made the final decision and they generally did a good job matching women to officer positions, even if it wasn't always the one they were "running" for.

An adviser is required to be present at all NomCom meetings.