SND’s fall election is right around the corner, and we want to hear from you about who should help lead the organization into the future.
SND’s strength has always been as a member-to member organization, and we want our election process to reflect that. We’re seeking your nominations for the 2010 secretary/treasurer office, vacated by Steve Dorsey who moves up the leadership ladder to become a candidate for vice president. Dorsey joins Bonita Burton, candidate for president, on the ballot, which includes a write-in option for all three offices.
Candidates for office must be active SND members with a strong record of organizational leadership. Officers must be willing to commit four years to the officer ladder (subsequently serving as vice president, president and past president), attend an annual spring and fall board meeting and be able to travel internationally on SND business throughout the year. For a description of secretary/treasurer responsibilities, click here.
To nominate someone (or yourself), send an email containing the candidate’s contact information and a paragraph about their qualifications to Past President Gaye Grin at ggrin@nationalpost.com. Nominations must be received by Aug. 10.
In accordance with SND’s bylaws, Grin will make the final ballot selection in consultation with a nominations committee. If you have questions, please email her or Executive Director Elise Burroughs at eliseb@snd.org. We look forward to your submissions.
Gayle, does this mean that no one else will formally be nominated for the President position or the Vice President position? Meaning the President and Vice President votes become mere formalities? I understand that that’s the way SND has always done it before, but this is far from a typical SND election.
During the various controversies that happened earlier this summer, there was a lot of talk about an open election this fall. Deciding who will be the President three years from now doesn’t seem like much of an opportunity to influence the current state of this organization. You can form a dozen more task forces and write Update notes about them, but that also isn’t going to influence change as much as an election.
A lot of people, myself included, were waiting to see what SND did to respond to this challenge. Would it be business as usual (talk, task forces and waiting out the clock)? Or would the organization truly offer up a chance to discuss and vote on its immediate future. I’m really hoping for the latter.
I believe that’s what it means.
Agreed.
Hi Gayle: Can you or someone also let us know who is on the nominating committee you’re consulting with? Thanks much.
Hello all
Good to hear from you. Let me answer your questions.
The nominating committee is the Executive Committee…elected Melissa Angle as regional directors’ rep on Executive, elected Marshall Matlock as
program directors’ rep; Hans Peter Janisch, international director; Chris Edwards from South America and Ken Irby from Poynter as outside organization consultants for SND; as well as Elise Burroughs, Steve Dorsey, Bonita Burton and me.
Most of us were part of a very very very lengthy conversation on Friday morning. This has been a unique year and we addressed that.
We questioned whether it made sense to open up all levels of the Election from now on.
After so much discussion about opening up the whole election at every level, we decided that the elected treasurer/ secretary really did need the time on the ladder in order to best meet the Society’s changing needs to how they can best contribute to our organization. I can personally say that was true for me.
But we unanimously wanted to have all SND members contribute to the Election process and decided to open up the nomination of Treasurer/ Secretary to all SND members.
So let me get this straight.
The Past President’s job, one of them anyway, is to choose the candidates for the secretary/treasurer position. Correct?
I don’t ever remember the membership being solicited as a whole to nominate candidates in the past.
Is this part of the renewed effort to involve the membership? Because the reality is, it doesn’t much matter who nominates whom, does it? It’s still the Past President’s call who will appear on that ballot—as consulted with the executive committee, of course.
Or does this merely serve as sleight of hand to let the membership think they’re part of some fantastic democratic process so everyone forgets that they were essentially promised an opportunity to vote for PRESIDENT on the fall ballot—but they’re really just voting for secretary/treasurer the same way they always have?
So the whole exercise earlier this summer, where the acting president was called out for some very obvious transgressions that she never really did fully DENY, wherein the membership of the Society was, if not assured, at the very least LED TO BELIEVE that it would be able to cast a vote for PRESIDENT for 2010—a way to have its collective voice heard if they disagreed with the acting president just waltzing into the president’s seat after all the controversy that surrounded her being in that situation to begin with ... that whole thing was ... not true?
There is no ballot for 2010 president?
All that controversy, in which the acting president was called out for many things, and many things that sounded far worse than what Matt Mansfield resigned over (and let’s just be honest once again—PRESSURED OUT OVER, including by the current acting president and presumed 2010 president) ... all that, we’re all supposed to just forget about it? And everything’s fine?
And there’s no election for that position, like we were all led to believe?
What. A. Freaking. SCAM.
And by the way, lest we forget, SND’s acting president said just last week that there WOULD be a fall election for president and vice president, as well as secretary/treasurer.
I can only assume that election took place in Orlando and one vote was good enough.
Unless you count the write-in portion. Again, Lord ... what a scam.
Members, from your acting president on July 29:
“Yes, there will be a fall election for president, vice president and secretary/treasurer. The nomination process was briefly discussed as part of Marshall’s report on SND bylaws and policies.
Past president Gayle Grin, who is responsible for nominations, is leading a more detailed conversation with the executive committee this Friday. We expect to distribute the ballot within the next few weeks. If you have feedback for Gayle, she can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).”
Gayle, I have been really impressed with all of things you’ve done professionally. And I thought you did some wonderful things as SND President.
But this is a horrible decision in a string of really, really bad decisions. How on earth the SND board (filled with really smart people who I have incredible admiration for) could decide that a year where the President is forced to resign and the Executive Director is out at the same time would necessitate a “business as usual” approach to the fall elections is beyond me? I would love to hear from the names Gayle mentioned how they came to that conclusion. At the very least, there should be options for all of the offices, not just Secretary/Treasurer.
I think what’s most disappointing to me is that this is what I expected to happen when Matt was forced out and the task forces were named. I suppose that power corrupts to the point where the people in charge will do anything to justify keeping that power as long as possible and convince themselves that they are doing what’s best for the organization we all love.
If this was meant as a healing, unifying move than I’d love to know how the board came to that conclusion as well.
So unless there’s a massive, targeted write-in campaign for President, VP, etc. the general masses of SND have been given little or no voice on the immediate leadership of this organization.
The SND Executive Committee has decided that it alone knows best who should lead organization in 2010, a year when we’ll have a new Executive Director and possibly a new headquarters and thousands less of us will be employed thanks to cost-cutting production methods like templating for the masses.
It will be interesting to see if the voiceless masses that make up SND disagree.
Hasta ahora a menos que yo no entienda algo aqui, lo que Gayle esta tratando de hacer es continuar co su papel como esta descrito en nuestra constitución. Nada de lo que se esta haciendo es personal es seguir nuestras leyes.
Con todo el respeto yo veo criticas pero no veo ofrecimiento de posibles soluciones que nos ayuden a ser estables nuevamente.
Yo en lo personal pienso mandar mi possible candidato para que Gaye lo tome en cuenta. Mi recomendación es que todos los nombres que se reciban se pongan en una base de datos y que todos los podamos ver. Una vez que se tengan los 5 candidatos con mayor votación, entonces el Comite Ejectutivo los entreviste como lo dice nuestra constitución para poder dar una recomendación final.
El punto aquí es que se vea un proceso transparente y que todos los miembros mundialmente puedan participar.
Esto es solo una sugerencia.
So far if I’m not misunderstanding something here, what Gayle is doing is exactly what our bylaws indicate.
Again unless there’s something I don’t know, we haven’t changed our constitution (bylaws) and she has to move forward and continue with her leadership role.
None of this is personal and is not business as usual, is following what is written in our bylaws.
With all respect. I see critiques, but so far I haven’t seen advice or suggestions of what can be done to reach our goal to be stable again.
I’ll send my personal nomination to Gayle and what I guess we could do, is to have those going to a database and pull the top 5 candidates or the ones that have the more support or votes, then the Executive Committee will interview or review these candidates and give their final recommendation.
Of course the point will be that all members can see a transparent voting and selection process world wide.
Is just one suggestion.
Yes, Gayle IS doing exactly what the bylaws indicate: Hold a fall election for secretary/treasurer.
I’m talking about the acting president on record as saying the membership would have the opportunity to choose a president, vice president and sec/treasurer this fall through an election process. At best, that was a gross generalization—playing on a membership that was pretty steamed at a situation she did a good deal to create. And at worst, it was an outright lie, knowing that there never would be an election for president—unless you count the opportunity for write-in votes.
And to be honest, none of this nomination process really matters that much. None of this gets us past the controversies of earlier this summer—which we were promised, as dues-paying members, we would get past through this election process. This election is no different than any one that has come before it, other than the person who is charged with nominating candidates has opened it up to members to pass on their suggestions. Whoop-de-freaking-do.
I have no axe to grind with Bonita Burton or SND. I left the board on my own accord, six weeks before any of this happened. I do have an axe to grind though when it comes to sending in my dues for years; volunteering time that I’ll never get back; paying my own way to workshops and judgings; being a freaking invited speaker at a workshop—and not even getting a comped workshop registration out of it because I can’t “profit” as a board member, despite that “profit” being sitting in my hotel room for most of the workshop to finish the presentation; blogging and promoting SND tirelessly at every turn ... and getting paid back by watching an internal implosion that without question turned into a witch hunt and a power play with more lies coming from what was left behind than anything that came before it leading to the original dispute.
In short, my politeness filter was turned off a long time ago on this matter. Everyone else can stand around and play nice and mince words. But this whole thing was an outrage and a scam from the beginning, and it’s been made even worse.
Here’s what the bylaws say about the election:
ARTICLE V — ELECTIONS
Section 1. Nominating Committee. The Immediate Past President shall be charged with responsibility for the nominating committee. The committee will present nominee(s) to the membership at the annual meeting for election to fill each elected vacancy on the Board of Directors.
Section 2. Notice of Nominations. The report of the nominating committee shall be mailed to each member of the Society at least three (3) weeks prior to the annual election. Announcement in a regular publication of the Society shall satisfy this requirement. Printed ballots with spaces for write-in candidates will be accepted from the members of the Society until the day of the regularly scheduled business meeting of the Society, at which time all legal votes will be tallied and ratified. Election results will then be announced during the annual business meeting of the Society.
There’s nothing there about a “ladder” election where people run unopposed every year. I believe there’s an amendment that talks about the ladder elections, but that’s a pretty sketchy thing to hide behind, especially considering how atypical this situation is.
Again, would love to hear from anyone on the SND board about why this is justified.
Hi, Rob and all,
In reviewing the election policies, the Executive Committee also relied on the amendments to the bylaws, which are below, and which indicate that officers are expected to ascend a ladder, and on the SND Leadership Book, which contains a variety of policies that were adopted by votes of the board over the years.
Although it is intended for directors and committee chairs, I am happy to send a PDF of the policies, or the entire Leadership Book, to any member who requests it.
AMENDMENTS TO THE BYLAWS OF SND
The original name upon incorporation in 1979 was “The Society of Newspaper Designers.”
The name was changed to “The Society of Newspaper Design” in September 1981.
1. The bylaws were adopted in October 1984.
2. The name change to the “Society for News Design” was approved by the membership in October 1997, in San Diego.
3. The insertion of the word “international” in Article II was approved by the membership in September 1998, in Philadelphia.
4. The rewrite of the bylaws to expand the board to include committee chairs as “Program Directors;” allow the board to expand the number of regions; and language to clean up gender references, was approved by the membership in Minneapolis, September 2000.
5. The bylaws were amended again in November 2002, in Savannah, Ga., and accepted by the membership, to “shorten” the officer ladder to three officers and to add three representatives from other journalism organizations to the Executive Committee.
That’s correct. The intention is to ascend the leadership ladder.
But there is no exclusive language within the bylaws or the amendments preventing another candidate from being added above the bottom rung of the ladder on the ballot.
It is traditional. It is not mandatory.
From the SND Leadership Book:
From the book:
“Officers are elected by the membership and serve one-year terms. Normally, once an SND member is elected to the post of Secretary/Treasurer, that individual will
progress through the Officer ranks to eventually become President. The progression — if supported by the membership during each election — is regarded as favorable because it allows officers to supervise key SND activities as they progress and serves as “on-the-job”
development.”
So what I want to know is how the board decided that this year’s atypical officer progression (the first time a President has resigned and been replaced by the VP and then the VP gets to serve another year as President) was supported by the membership. Was there a secret poll? There was certainly a great deal of concern about how all of this was handled by SND members in June and in fact a lot of SND board members quit because of the way this was handled.
To hide behind the bylaws and try to shove this through without members having a say is unconscionable for an organizations that is supposed to be filled with journalists. If someone were trying to do this in our communities, we would certainly shine the light on this activity in our newspapers. Why should we be any different?
Rob, it’s apparent that the President doesn’t want competition on the ballot.
‘Scuse me ... not to interrupt or split hairs here, but ...
ACTING president. ACTING. She doesn’t become president until Jan. 1 under the current scam ... errr, sorry ... PLAN. Current PLAN, not SCAM.
Hello all
I want you to know both Bonita and Steve were open to the idea of opening up the vote for the whole ladder, especially in response to our unique situation this year. The Executive Committee had a lengthy conversation on Friday morning addressing this.
The discussion was thoughtful…we really wrestled with the process. We wondered whether this should be a yearly process, and if so would the candidates spend more time campaigning than doing what they can for SND and membership?
We were open to the IDEA of a vote for the whole ladder but really wondered about becoming a president without the time of learning through the experience of being Secretary/Treasurer and then Vice President. There is no way I could have been president without going through those steps. We finally acknowledged that it was very helpful to SND and to its membership for the Secretary/Treasurer to move up the ladder serving as ‘on-the-job’development. And so for sure we wanted to ask all members for suggestions for that role.
I am receiving very good suggestions from the membership to run for this
role. Thank you! This is a great way to build a new pool of potential leaders. Please keep them coming!
I think I smell the future ...
I think this might be the first time in history that a board of directors has more members than its actual membership.
SND board: 36.
SND members: 23.
Memories of how things used to be: Priceless.
Point of clarification, MattE, Steve and Rob.
Bonita’s title is “vice president.”
“President,” according to the bylaws, is elected and only elected. Therefore we don’t have an acting president. We have a vice-president and a secretary/treasurer. But according to the bylaws which we’re now tripping over ourselves to trumpet, we do not have a president. Not even an acting one.
Just wanted to clarify.
And not to say, “LOOK AT DAT CAN OF WORMS I THINK I’LL JUST OPEN IT UP RIGHT HERE THIS CAN OF WORMS ...”
...
But isn’t Matt Mansfield now the immediate past president?
Just brushing up on my bylaws and that little thought popped up. His resignation, after all, was not from SND, just from the position of president.
Annnnnnd ...
Boom goes the dynamite.
Which means, why don’t we just blow this whole mess of an organization up and start from scratch? Torpedo it, like they’d do in Vegas with a casino that’s underperforming.
SND is now the Sands. Blow it the eff up and rebuild it—maybe not as the Bellagio, but at least the Monte Carlo.
Actually, at this point, I’d settle for Palace Station. How sad is that? Beats the hell out of this Circus Circus crap going on right now.
I’ll lend this much credence to your analogy, MattE.
Like Vegas, we’re putting on one hell of an implosion.
I have a question, and then I will never ask another question ever for as long as I live of anybody.
From the bylaws:
“Officers are elected by the membership and serve one-year terms. NORMALLY, once an SND member is elected to the post of Secretary/Treasurer, that individual will progress through the Officer ranks to eventually become President. The progression — if supported by the membership during each election — is regarded as favorable because it allows officers to supervise key SND activities as they progress and serves as “on-the-job”
development.”
When we created that bylaw, we put the word “normally” in there.
Presumably, to account for years in which the selection of the officers would occur in a manner which would NOT be constituted as “normally.”
My question is: What makes this year’s election one which is occurring “normally,” and if this year is normal, what circumstances WOULD be considered “abnormal” to the point we would not follow that procedure off of a cliff?
Dear mysterious SND spector: Are you willing to look members in the eye and call this a normal year?
And if THIS is a normal year and if there is NO situation which can be called abnormal, then WHY do the bylaws use the word “normally?”
Typo?
And lastly. I said no more questions, but my personal bylaws leave that open to interpretation, and what it really means is “No more NEW questions.” I’m going to expound on an old one.
At the end of this year, who becomes immediate past president?
* Mansfield? Did he resign from SND or just as president?
* Bonita, which if elected president would give her the titles of president and immediate-past president?
* Gayle, as most recent non-resignin’ president, which would give her UNPRECEDENTED powers in SND, namely setting the ballots for two elections?
Which of the above is it?
And if so, are we suuuuuuuuuurrrre this is “normal?”
As stated in the bylaws, the vice president performs the job until an election should the president not finish a term. So Bonita would not fill both roles. I believe it was stated in an earlier thread that Matt would become past president on January 1.
What’s not clear is how a group of individuals could look at this situation and go, “This seems like a normal year.”
And if the ladder is so important to giving people time to grow into the job, was Bonita ready in June when she told the board that she was ready to step in? I guess maybe you only need a year and a half.
What I can’t get my head around is why preserving “on-the-job development” is the prime value that must be preserved here. What does it take to trump that? A felony?
We’ve got people rushing off to re-write bylaws, but I think whoever wrote the bylaws the first time was pretty smart to distinguish between “normal” and, well, not normal.
What makes this year normal?
SND’s founding fathers had to anticipate this—that in the absence of normalcy the organization might drive many of its members to blowing the whole organization up—and that’s why they included that word.
To a layman, that’s what it looks like.
Gayle, I appreciate you addressing this on here.
So my question is simple: The SND Leadership Book says the laddered, unopposed elections needs to be supported by the membership.
How many SND members will it take to convince you and the board that there need to be open elections for President, Vice President and Secretary/Treasurer? This wouldn’t be an endorsement of one candidate or another, it would just simply state that the belief there should be an open election.
Just tell me how many members you would need to convince and we can get a petition started. Luckily, there’s still plenty of time before the convention in late September, including the three-week deadline in the bylaws.
Thank you.
Let’s face it. Burton and company went right around the promises and complaints of the last few months and she will be the next president unless a massive write-in campaign is mounted.
So let’s get started and as members demand leadership we trust and believe is best qualified to lead the organization.
All we need is a complete list of members.
Who wants to start this ball rolling?
Seems to me there’s a few names above worth the top write-in spots, if they’re willing…
Completamente de acuerdo con lo que dice Javier Torres. Para hacer de esto una verdadera eleccion hay que enviarle a Gayle Grin nuestras opciones, yo lo pienso hacer.
—-
Totally agreed, Javier. In order to make this coming election a truly election, we need to send our options of candidates to Gayle Grin. That’s exactly what I’m going to do.
Hi Rob
We really hope that you will nominate candidates for the secretary-treasurer position, and you are of course free to write in names for the other positions. Any SND members can also petition the board or executive committee at any time. I think it takes 2/3 vote from the members, after board approval to change the election process or any existing bylaw.
https://www.snd.org/about/organization_bylaws.html
ARTICLE IX — AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS
The summit attendees and the entire executive committee sought advice from a variety of sources, from founding members to new members. They discussed many of the questions you are discussing on this blog. They reviewed previous difficult situations that have occurred over the last 30 years. Both Bonita and Steve were agreeable to opening up all spots on the ballot. But this course of opening up nominations for secretary/treasurer was the consensus of the larger group.
These volunteer leaders, including the elected leaders, have invested an incredible amount of time, energy and money considering these issues. They are conducting the Society’s business in what they see as the Society’s best interests.
It is an unfortunate reality that not all the members agree with the Executive Committee. Further, SND member surveys show that all members do not always agree with every board action. In an international organization with members all over the world, there is bound to be a variety of opinions.
We have REALLY wrestled with this. There is honestly no answer which will satisfy everyone.
Please continue to nominate your candidates for secretary/treasurer and remember the deadline nominations is August 10th. We hope that after the election, all members will support the elected officers and SND’s many activities as the Society moves forward during these very difficult economic times.
“The summit attendees and the entire executive committee sought advice from a variety of sources, from founding members to new members.”
Are we able to see a list of who the Executive Committee sought out for advice?
So, back to more relevant topics…
A couple things:
1) I was wondering when the deadline to (re)join SND is if you want to be sure you get a ballot that counts.
2) I’d suggest that anyone willing to step into the top spots should jump on Donna Davidson’s idea and start their viral campaign. NOW. Start here, then get on Facebook, Twitter, et al, and spread the word. Yes, it shouldn’t have to come to that, but if those are the parameters we’re facing, work it. Please don’t delay.
Gayle.
You know I love you. I am a card-carrying member of your fan club.
But can help me understand why we are standing behind the bylaws, articulating that it takes a 2/3 majority to change them, while at the same time NOT addressing the part of the bylaws that gives us leeway to rectify unusual occurrences that do not occur “normally?”
That’s in the bylaws for a reason and takes a 2/3 vote to remove, so why are we not abiding by that?
I mean, we couldn’t move fast enough to accept the resignation of our elected president. But at the same time we have no interest in holding an election to rectify the same problem?
That’s either talking out of both sides of our mouth, OR it’s not “normal.”
In a world where all things are possible, those are the only two possibilities.
Which is it?
Are we as a group being hypocritical?
Or is this not a “normal” year?
If the second one is the answer, then we need to hold an election.
The vast majority of members—many more than elected either Matt or Bonita (to take all biases away)—feel this way, and that is not in any way up for debate.
You know it.
I know it.
And every member of this organization know it.
Thanks, Gayle. My nominee is already in your hands.
I wish I could send you nominees for the other offices too, but the SND board has decided I don’t get that right. The opportunity to make the difficult decision in a confusing time was there. In fact, that’s why you have an executive board. But you all took the easier path and are now hiding behind the reasons you list above.
I appreciate the incredible and smart people you all must have talked to about how deal with this pickle. Unfortunately, this is a pickle that hasn’t happened to SND before (a President being forced out mid-year) so I don’t know of the precedents you discussed that led you to this decision. I would love to hear about them.
Looking at the original post, it’s clear you all didn’t want to discuss this at all and just wished it would all go away so you can get back to “normal”. I appreciate that you’ve even addressed it, Gayle, but every post comes off as if it’s being written to a five-year old who couldn’t possibly understand the complexity of an organization of journalists.
I’m led to believe that the current leadership thinks that everyone thinks you all are doing a superb job with the exception of a few rambunctious posters. That’s certainly an insulated way of looking at this situation.
But I can tell you from the email and calls I’m getting and the email that others are getting that the people posting here are far from alone. A lot of people are angry and those people will show that anger in different ways.
One of the clearest ways will be on the ballot. I had hoped they would have alternatives to choose from, but the SND board doesn’t think we deserve them - even though the bylaws and leadership book would clearly allow them to be there.
So I guess all that’s left is a write-in campaign. I just hope there isn’t another constitutional trick up SND’s sleeve to make that go away either.
One of two things will happen when the votes are counted: the board will know that everyone thinks they are doing are a fantastic job or the board will be in for a gigantic shock.
My inbox tells me you all are in for a shock.
As for the assertion that there is “no answer that will satisfy everyone ...”
Wouldn’t an election satisfy everyone?
If there is a call for a change, that would satisfy those making such calls.
And if an election kept the leadership exactly as it currently stands, that would satisfy the group that thinks that is in the best interest of SND.
Therefore, if an election would satisfy everyone, why not hold it?
Regarding ballots for the 2009 SND Annual Election, headquarters will begin sending e-mails and postcards with instructions for online voting to members around Sept. 1.
We will send the instructions to all members who are current on Sept. 1.
In addition, we will send instructions to members who join or renew through Sept. 11.
The election will close at 12 a.m. Buenos Aires time on Saturday, Sept. 26. The results will be announced at the Annual Meeting Luncheon, Saturday, Sept. 26.
A friend in the industry emailed me to ask why I can’t just let this pass – that for the good of the society I claim to love, wouldn’t it be better to just drop it and stop with the posts and the questions?
It’s a fair thing to ask, and I believe it warrants an answer.
I have been deeply involved with SND for more than a decade. Nothing about that makes me special. In fact it makes me the same as most of our current leadership and dozens if not hundreds of members before us who volunteered time and resources to keep our society going. In a small way, I was one of the many active members who helped push, pull and otherwise shape SND as we currently know it. In short, I am invested.
I am invested in seeing our society thrive despite the worst economic climate of our lifetime, the worst downturn in news organizations in U.S. history, a diminishing of the value of our creative journalistic skillset from templates, modules, outsourcing and managers who don’t always understand what it is we even do as artists, designers, photographers, programmers and IT specialists.
But I also believe survival at any cost is not survival at all. I believe that doing what is right is different, and often much harder, than doing what is popular or what is most to our own advantage. It would probably make some people feel better not to know the truth we report to the world every day as journalists. But it would be a violation of our sworn mission - to tell the truth, to protect democracy and free speech, to be honest and transparent with our audience or have a pretty damn good explanation why we can’t be.
Which brings me to the recent events within our society. Without recapping it all in great detail, I think these are the critical points:
• Several members of the board including the vice president felt the elected president had to be removed. They pressured and otherwise threatened him with the loss of the UNC deal (true), the loss of the Denver workshop (false) and the belief he did not have the votes to survive an up / down vote (false). Ultimately he resigned.
• In the wake of this event, we, the membership, were invited to a chat to provide transparency. When we arrived at the chat, statements were made to make it clear most questions were off limits. Many were moderated out altogether and very little information was provided.
• In response to dissatisfaction over the chat and the lack of transparency, the board produced a timeline of events that lead to the president’s resignation.
• When the timeline raised as many questions as answers, we were asked to give the leadership time to show what they want to accomplish. We were told several times by different board members we could judge our leaders with our votes in the upcoming election and until then to hold on and let them try to pull things together and work on an agenda.
• Committees were formed to study several areas including revisions to the bylaws. According to the vice president “there are issues about matters like succession and power of appointments that are central to ensuring we can function properly from an organizational standpoint” that are not covered in the bylaws. In short, the bylaws did not cover the extraordinary situation of a president who resigned under pressure from members of the board.
• Now that the summit of our leaders has happened we are told the elections will proceed uncontested, at least on the official ballot, for the top two elected officer positions in the society. The reason for this is the bylaws dictate it working this way in any “normal” year. This explanation is from the same people who told us something so extraordinary happened with the president’s resignation that it requires a reexamining of the very bylaws they want to now hide behind. It can not be both.
This is government run amok. When elected officials think they know better than the people they represent about how things should work and who should be in charge, it is time for a change. This is leadership that had no problem attempting to remove our fairly elected president by any means necessary, and then lacks the courage to put an election in the hands of the membership.
So why can’t I let this go?
Because the ends do not automatically justify the means – Matt’s resignation as president gives no quarter or pardon for the tactics used against him, even if our leaders believed the reasons for his departure were valid.
Because a core tenet of journalism is democracy but our leadership seems to want to avoid accounting for their actions in an election by the membership, defining these events as “normal” if it will preserve the status quo.
Because I don’t understand what the vice president and secretary/treasurer have to fear about a contested election, if the membership is squarely behind them and people like me are just a vocal minority. Gayle has said they are both agreeable to facing someone on the ballot, yet the plan is still to run an uncontested election for those positions. This seems like a convenient way to say you wanted to let us vote, but it was other people in the existing government that said no.
“We have let all of our constituents down, and we need to work harder than ever to make that right.” – Bonita Burton
Doing what is right in this instance is giving those of us who are unsure of the current leadership a chance to fill a spot on the ballot for the top two offices. Then you can silence us with your victory or accept the will of the membership in defeat.
The Society for News Design’s fall election is weeks away. I’d like to inform you of my intention to run for president of the Society as a write-in candidate.
We face a pivotal moment in our industry — and within SND. I’m ready to lead my colleagues in reassessing the status quo, removing the bureaucracy and blazing new, innovative paths ahead. And while I have a long history with SND, I have never served on the board or as an officer, which I believe is beneficial to seeing with fresh eyes and pioneering a plan that will help SND members. This will be a movement about fresh ideas — not old politics.
I will reach out to everyone. If you have left, we want you back. We will make SND relevant for you. I will advocate for you publicly and privately. We will make SND your organization.
Most importantly, we need to harness our collective energy to meet today’s formidable challenges. Now.
Let’s share. Let’s train. Let’s be relevant.
We are the architects of our own future, and I invite you to visit http://www.snd2010.org to learn more about me and my goals for the Society in 2010 — and to share your ideas and questions.
Despite considered and passionate calls from members, SND’s leadership decided against an open election — so my name won’t appear on the official ballot. I hope you’ll take the time to learn about my campaign, read the endorsements of those who support me and write in my name when you receive your ballot.
Sincerely,
Kris Viesselman
This is great news. The masses will speak. Best of luck, Kris.
With a hopeful write-in campaign for SND president launched, I imagine that there will be some discussions at the executive committee level about how (or, I guess, whether) to respond.
I hope that at some point part of the discussion can be about the technicalities of a write-in campaign. Those supporting Kris for president will need to know how to ensure that their vote counts.
Specifically, I hope Executive Director Elise Burroughs and Secretary/Treasurer Steve Dorsey (who I believe have the responsibilities for setting up the ballot, counting and collecting votes) would give us detailed answers to the following questions before or when the ballots are distributed:
1. What will constitute a valid write-in vote? Kris has a name that I’m sure has been misspelled many times. If someone writes a “C” instead of a “K” on Kris or transposes the i and e or leaves out an s in Viesselman, will that disqualify that vote? What is the standard here? Is it just a clear intent or will exactitude be required? Are there any other things besides spelling that must be strictly adhered to?
2. Who exactly will count the votes and who will be included to verify that count?
3. While it hasn’t been done in the past, given the extraordinary nature of this election would it be possible to announce the vote totals in addition to just naming the winner?
Please advise if you will take these things into account and answer before the voting begins.
Many thanks, Bill
You know, you could avoid all of this, if you would actually just put Kris Viesselman on the ballot.
Considering the shady circumstances that have occurred over the past few months, that would seem to be the right thing to do and would satisfy something that a large chunk of SND members have already asked for.
I know there’s a difference between the right thing to do and the most politically expedient, but I hope the SND Exec Board would make the difficult choice.
Mr. Gaspard, you raise excellent questions, as always. We’re working to get you timely answers. The bottom line, as you know, is that there has always been a write-in option for each position on the ballot, but there has never been a write-in campaign quite like this before. Rest assured that all votes cast will be counted. We’ll get some more details about the exact process to share with everyone (and likely repeat that on the ballots themselves just to be clear). And I agree with you that sharing totals would be prudent when the election is announced. Thanks for asking.
And now we’re back to the point where the members have no choice on the ballot or via other announced write-in candidates for the most vital roles. So everybody should be happy now.
Except the members.
Chris, I appreciated our direct email exchange on this subject earlier today. So, just for the (public) record, I told you I’ve always been in favor of contested elections and continue to be.