Nomination Committee Discussion

From Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP)
Revision as of 20:02, November 2, 2014 by Erinmr (talk | contribs) (→‎Tiger Team Members)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Return to main C&B page


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.

Tiger Team Members

  • ESIP C&B committee
  • Emily Law
  • Stacie Doman Bennett
  • Erin Robinson (ex officio as staff input)

Text of proposed bylaws: approved by the EXCOM for Assembly discussion and vote

Section 1 – Electing officers

III.1.1 There shall be a Nominating Committee composed of five (5) members who shall be selected by the President and approved by the Executive Committee at the second Executive Committee Meeting after the Annual Meeting.

III.1.1.1 The Nominating Committee shall have at least one representative from ESIP Partnership Categories 1 through 3 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.

Section 2 - ESIP prize nominations

III.1.2.1 The Nominating Committee will prepare nominations for ESIP Prizes at the request of the President.


[Please add your comments here]

We might want to put in a term of office... the idea is that a NEW committee is formed after every annual meeting. bruce c (talk)


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.

Emily's comments: Thanks Denise for your reply and clarification. My additional thoughts are: Perhaps in addition to the Bylaws which describes the requirements (is that true?), a process document that lays out step by step of what, when, who and how will be useful to guide the NC. Also, the NC can help work on specifying the leadership roles & responsibilities and developing qualifications of those roles.

I agree that the process needs some policy document that is not written in the bylaws, but is maintained as a standing policy. bruce c (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2014 (MDT)

Carol's input Hi Bruce,

Some rambling thoughts…

I like the idea of a nominating committee. For both elected offices and awards, better promotion of the opportunities is a must.

I think that a nominations will be more easily implemented with awards and might be a good place to start. The stakes are different. I have been promoting the use of Type Reps (official ones or others) to keep balance in these processes. I also like the idea of keeping the Pres/VP involved - they provide some of the institutional memory for why an outcome should be made. As with anything of this nature, decisions are not always cut and dried.

As for ESIP leadership - I'm not sure where to start. The nominations process should take into account the breadth of members and be mindful of cultivating new leadership. Not all community members will be inclined to step into leadership roles. ESIP will continue to need leadership that can represent the organization well before sponsors, the community and have standing within community. If a nominating committee can identify those people, then that is good. We've had few instances of people stepping forward to run but most everyone has been recruited. The nominating committee should allow for self-nomination/identification of candidates too.

As volunteer leadership goes, the balancing act between home org and ESIP is delicate and as such, leadership might not always be as tuned into ESIP things as would be optimal. Staff will continue to be an important resource for leadership identification and cultivation and should be tapped to serve in an advisory capacity.

I've spoken with Tyler and Erin is working with him too on a 'welcome wagon' for new members. We keep adding organizations but they're not engaging. New members represent an untapped source of potential leaders. As it is, ESIP leadership remains the domain of very few (and a largely stable few, though this class of leadership is much more diverse than in the past).

Thanks for asking, Carol