Thank you for a substantive reply.
ORIGINAL: Hossfly
Personally I'm not yet certain I would try to change anything EXCEPT that through the "Standing Rules" I would try to get the EC to allow anyone, in the running for Nominating Committee (NC) nomination, to attend the NC meeting and be allowed to state and/or debate the issue prior to the NC vote. Anyone from the outside running against an incumbent has the deck stacked against himself, the outsider. I think that any member-nominated individual willing to attend the NC meeting at his/her own expense, should be allowed to attend and speak at the NC meeting, but NOT vote.
Short of just allowing all qualified nominees on the ballot, that would be a good step. Allowing an incumbant to be present, but not someone else vying for the same spot is just plain wrong. If the incumbant can speak for him/herself then all other potential candidates should be afforded the same opportunity.
In addition, I would be for those EC members also nominated for a renewal or other EC position to not be allowed to vote for those position/s they are are running for.
Again, I agree completely. I would certainly define THAT as a conflict of interest.
Horrace, if you should be elected, and attempt to move things in that direction I would support it 100%, and would petition my DVP to support it as well.
Am I correct that a change to the bylaws requires ony a majority vote by the EC to then be put to the Leader Members for a 2/3rds approval? If this is the case, then mustering enough support to change the standing rules might also give you enought support to change the bylaws themselves
If you could muster the support within the EC, would you support changing the procedure altogether to eliminate the NC as it now exists, and having all qualified nominees appear on the ballot? As I've said in an earlier message I think that would require other changes as well, but would be the only way to prevent what happend to you the year you were able to mount your write-in campaign, or for last year's election for president. To me that is the underlying problem. The EC/NC should not be able to keep someone off the ballot that has enough support from the district to be be elected anyway.
Do you see a problem with that which I may not be taking into consideration?
Nothing is going to stop EC members from seeding the ballots to ensure outsiders get a split up vote. With the very low interest of the overall membership, I doubt that to try anything in that problem is going to do any good. Red conveniently lost the 2nd time I ran against Holland results where I received over 40% of the vote. That showed some dissatisfaction in the ranks. When I ran against Sandy Frank, Moss, a well known and respected RCer was, at the last minute, inducted and provided a quick Leader Membership so as to fill the ballot. SHOT happens and it always will.
They could do that even without the mechanism of the NC. Moss would have been nominated and appeared on the ballot anyway if all qualified candidates just passed on through. That might not be the best example of them trying to change the election by adding a 3rd candidate, though. He got fewer votes than you did. Sandy Frank won with 65% of the vote. (Per Red's numbers posted earlier)