Difference between revisions of "Nomination Committee Discussion"

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
Consider allowing independent nominations submit to the Nomination Committee for vetting/approval.
 
Consider allowing independent nominations submit to the Nomination Committee for vetting/approval.
 
III.1.2.1 - I don't understand "The Nominating Committee will suggest nominations for ESIP Prizes in cases where ESIP members have not presented sufficient nominations by a deadline set for each prize by the Executive Committee." Is this to provide incentives to get more nominations if needed?
 
III.1.2.1 - I don't understand "The Nominating Committee will suggest nominations for ESIP Prizes in cases where ESIP members have not presented sufficient nominations by a deadline set for each prize by the Executive Committee." Is this to provide incentives to get more nominations if needed?
 +
 +
[[User:Denise|Denise]] ([[User talk:Denise|Denise]]) 15:32, 1 April 2014 (CDT) - replies to [[User:Bcaron|bruce c]] ([[User talk:Bcaron|talk]])  and Emily:
 +
III.1.1.2 - For a time frame, I would say at least one month prior to election. We might want to then change III.1.1 to be set up earlier, or within a certain time frame after a new ExComm is established.
 +
III.1.1.3 - I like Bruce's addition of encouragement for nomination. Emily, the independent nominations having 2 Reps is a holdover from how the current Bylaws are written. It's also not stated anywhere how the Nominating Committee goes about getting their nominations - when I've been involved on NC in the past, typically suggestions are solicited from the membership and vetted, but if we feel that needs to be stated as part of the process, I'm happy to add.
 +
III.1.2.1 - Emily, I do believe the rationale is to ensure a robust nomination process for the prizes, and to provide the NC with multiple purposes.

Revision as of 14:40, April 1, 2014

[to main C&B page]

Purpose/vision

The purpose of adding this new capability is to augment the ability of the members to offer up the best candidates for office and for prizes. The nominating committee should be made aware that their task is to help ESIP grow and reward its leadership and to help bring a healthy diversity and mix of skills into the leadership of the organization.

Text of proposed bylaws

Here is the draft text of a bylaw addition to include a nominating committee (from Denise Hills):

Section 1 – Electing Officers

III.1.1 There shall be a Nominating Committee composed of five (5) members who shall be elected by the Executive Committee at least two (2) months prior to the election of officers.

III.1.1.1 The Nominating Committee shall have at least one representative from ESIP Partnership Categories 1 through 4 as defined in Article I of these Bylaws.

III.1.1.2 The Committee shall nominate one or more candidates for each elective office, to be announced to the General Assembly prior to the election, at which time additional nominations may be made.

III.1.1.3 Additional nominations must be by at least two other Representatives.


DISCUSSION

As to III.1.1.3, I would also add: "Independent nominations are encouraged and must be made by two ESIP Representatives." bruce c (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (MDT)

We might also want to add a section on ESIP Prizes... bruce c (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (MDT)

III.1.2.1 The Nominating Committee will suggest nominations for ESIP Prizes in cases where ESIP members have not presented sufficient nominations by a deadline set for each prize by the Executive Committee. Sufficient nomination status shall be determined by the President of the Federation according to number and/or quality of the nominations from the membership. bruce c (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (MDT)

This gives the Nominating Committee a "backstop" role to add nominations for prizes in years when the membership has not be forthcoming with these. bruce c (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2014 (MDT)

Emily's comments: III.1.1.2 - how long prior to the election shall the announcement be made to the general assembly? III.1.1.3 - independent nominations should be encouraged. What's the rational behind the requirement by at least 2 Reps? Consider allowing independent nominations submit to the Nomination Committee for vetting/approval. III.1.2.1 - I don't understand "The Nominating Committee will suggest nominations for ESIP Prizes in cases where ESIP members have not presented sufficient nominations by a deadline set for each prize by the Executive Committee." Is this to provide incentives to get more nominations if needed?

Denise (Denise) 15:32, 1 April 2014 (CDT) - replies to bruce c (talk) and Emily: III.1.1.2 - For a time frame, I would say at least one month prior to election. We might want to then change III.1.1 to be set up earlier, or within a certain time frame after a new ExComm is established. III.1.1.3 - I like Bruce's addition of encouragement for nomination. Emily, the independent nominations having 2 Reps is a holdover from how the current Bylaws are written. It's also not stated anywhere how the Nominating Committee goes about getting their nominations - when I've been involved on NC in the past, typically suggestions are solicited from the membership and vetted, but if we feel that needs to be stated as part of the process, I'm happy to add. III.1.2.1 - Emily, I do believe the rationale is to ensure a robust nomination process for the prizes, and to provide the NC with multiple purposes.