IPSE CC Elections 2015

[TheFaQQer]

Nominating people is probably harmless (they could easily nominate each other instead). I think the bigger issue that it introduces a slate (vote for my representatives)..

A wonder if the solution would be to hide the names of those who nominate and second...

Looking at the outcome from the 2014 election, I don't think it makes any difference. A number of candidates who were backed by board members weren't elected last time round, and some were.

7 unsuccessful candidates - 3 proposed by board members, 1 seconded
17 successful candidates - 7 proposed by board members, 2 seconded

I haven't looked at the earlier elections because I haven't got the details of who was on the board each year to hand (I know they'll be in the Notice Board section of the IPSE forums because I say the subject of the posts earlier today but didn't read them).

I'll have a look again for the 2015 results when they are available and see whether there is anything obvious that stands out.

[malvolio]

However the bulk of the votes are on paper, and the team are fairly confident from site visit stats that a lot of votes are done purely on the back of the paper documents, which only list names, not positions. It's worth looking into but I don't believe there is any skewing of results purely on the basis of who nominates and/or seconds people.

[tarbera]

IPSE CC Elections 2015

The BOD always get a few ringers (except Gilmour who is above such nonsense ) - what else do you expect ?

Probably

[tarbera]

Looking at the outcome from the 2014 election, I don't think it makes any difference. A number of candidates who were backed by board members weren't elected last time round, and some were.

7 unsuccessful candidates - 3 proposed by board members, 1 seconded
17 successful candidates - 7 proposed by board members, 2 seconded

I haven't looked at the earlier elections because I haven't got the details of who was on the board each year to hand (I know they'll be in the Notice Board section of the IPSE forums because I say the subject of the posts earlier today but didn't read them).

I'll have a look again for the 2015 results when they are available and see whether there is anything obvious that stands out.

You need to look at who voted for who in the BOD elections sir

[malvolio]

You need to look at who voted for who in the BOD elections sir

Well, dur...

Do you vote for people you like or people you don't like?

In the past, CC have elected wrong people for the right reasons and vice versa but since we adopted the rules as they were up to this year I don't recall us having an ineffective BoD. And from where I sit, results are what counts.

[Ticktock]

I should point out that my raising the fact that a number of candidates have been proposed by one Director is not any sort of implication that they are / should / will / could receive extra support. What I meant was simply that by them all being proposed it gives the impression of stacking the deck.

With the number of seats vs the number of candidates, the more that are proposed by one person, the more chance that some of their picks will get a seat. For an ordinary member that may be no big deal (although I still say it should be limited to one proposal). For a Director it may not be a big deal, and I'm not suggesting anything untoward here - it could be as simple as some people wanting to stand, not really knowing anyone in IPSE who could propose them and so picking a Director and asking for help, who obliges with the thinking "the more choice in candidates the better".

However, if the BoD is drawn from the CC, then a member of the BoD putting forward multiple CC candidates could give a bad impression. I don't actually believe there's anything dodgy here, or intentionally untoward, I just think it could look a bit bad.

[TheFaQQer]

You need to look at who voted for who in the BOD elections sir

Unless I'm elected, I can't - because the minutes don't record who voted for which director.

Maybe next year

[tarbera]

Unless I'm elected, I can't - because the minutes don't record who voted for which director.

Maybe next year

Check out the attachment

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads...y-2014.108083/

For example

[TheFaQQer]

With the number of seats vs the number of candidates, the more that are proposed by one person, the more chance that some of their picks will get a seat. For an ordinary member that may be no big deal (although I still say it should be limited to one proposal). For a Director it may not be a big deal, and I'm not suggesting anything untoward here - it could be as simple as some people wanting to stand, not really knowing anyone in IPSE who could propose them and so picking a Director and asking for help, who obliges with the thinking "the more choice in candidates the better".

I think that the proposal statements make it clear why they are proposing the candidate. This year, one candidate wasn't known on the forums so approached a director who took a punt and hoped that they would get involved and express an opinion - which they did. Other directors have said things like "I've known XYZ for 10 years..." so they have made it clear that they are backing them from a personal perspective - although some of those that have been backed have chosen not to engage on the IPSE forums.

I seconded six candidates this year (a third of the field!), hoping that there would be some engagement from them all, but only one of them has really done that to a large extent. Three haven't posted on the IPSE forums at all, another has made one post (I think).

I don't think I'd write a proposal for someone I didn't know, but I'm happy to second people and hope that they then take the opportunity to engage with the membership, to try to make sure that we have a range of candidates to choose from. If that comes back to bite me when the results are counted then so be it.

[TheFaQQer]

Check out the attachment

https://community.ipse.co.uk/threads...y-2014.108083/

For example

That's for the governance working party - there's nothing in the minutes that details who voted which way in the director's election though.

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory - I'd like to think that the directors nominate people without expecting any undue support, and I'd like to think that the CC members vote for who they think are the best people for the job rather than just picking their mates.

I may be completely wrong, but until I see it in action, I can't really comment on how it works.