ORIGINAL: Bob Mitchell

In all of the discussions going on concerning the current AMA elections, especially that for EVP, one topic that has been brought up several times is that of the AMA Nominating Committee procedures. Most of the comments I've seen have been negative, or at the least questioned the wisdom of the current procedures.

My understanding of those procedures is that only Leader Members may nominate, that only Leader Members may serve as elected officers, there is a limitation of 3 nominees on the ballot per office, each of whom must meet the guidelines set out in the bylaws for that particular office, and that the nominating committee will select those 3. The nominees are selected by majority vote of the committee, with the exception that it requires a 3/4's majority to keep an incumbant off the ballot if he or she has been re-nominated. Election to office is by plurality of votes cast by the membership, not majority.

My questions and comments below are based on these, so I would appreciate it if someone would correct me if I'm wrong on any of the above.

1. Has there ever been a case of a qualified candidate being witheld from the ballot by the committee resulting in LESS than 3 nominees? IOW, only 2 names on the ballot, even though 3 or more candicates qualified per the bylaws were submitted by Leader Members?

2. How many times has there been a nomination witheld, because of the limitation of 3 on the ballot. IOW 3 names on the ballot but other additional "qualified" candidates left off to meet that limitation?

Comments:

1. It seems to me, and I know that there are a number posting here agree that this current procedure results in a situation where the sitting EC can essentially eliminate someone from the ballot that they don't want to deal with, or can included people on the ballot that are less likely to receive votes, in order to steer the election to someone of their choosing. That's my primary reason for asking question #1 above. I think that if there are 3 or fewer candidates who meet the qualifications laid out in the bylaws, all three should automatically be on the ballot.

2. It also seems to me that the current procedures were put in place to eliminate the need for run-off elections, but that it puts more power into the hands of the nominating committee than is really appropriate. I don't think the EC should be in a position to essentially perpetuate itself, but what are the alternatives if one is to avoid costly and lengthy run-off elections?

3. It's my understanding that the nominating committee has been charged with bringing a report to the EC on suggestions of how to improve the nominating procedures, and that the report is due at this months EC meeting.

In the elections now winding down, we have one office with 3 names on the ballot, 2 offices with only the incumbant running, and the balance (including EVP) with just 2 names.

So...........how do you think the nominating procedures should be changed/improved? (If at all?) Leave things the way they are? Should we just bite the bullet, accept all nominees that are qualified per the bylaws and deal with the run-offs? Come up with a totally new way of choosing which nominees actually appear on the ballot, removing the EC from the equations somehow? Could that be done without just putting the power the EC/Nominating Committee now has into just another set of hands? What, if anything, should be changed? It will be interesting to compare the comments here with whatever the commitee reports back with.

Also......What can or should be done to encourge others to get involved, so we don't have the common situation of the incumbant running unopposed for re-election?

My personal opinion is that any qualified nominee (per the bylaws) should appear on the ballot, and we accept that we'll have run-offs. That would probably require that the entire procedure be started 2-3 months earlier for each election, and increase the cost of each election. That seems a reasonable price to pay to me, but this is the first AMA election since I got involved and I'm interested in hearing other perspectives.