Conference: Proposal Nine

THESE PROPOSALS ARE TO DISCUSS CONCEPTS ONLY.  ACTUAL LANGUAGE WILL BE DRAFTED AT A LATER TIME.

Watch the webinar recording for Conferences & Committees.

We encourage you to use the PowerPoint presented at the webinar and the Structure Modernization Discussion Guide to help facilitate conversations in your networks.  


 Conferences: Proposal Nine

  • For Officer Elections – No nominations from the floor
  • Deadline for submitting officer ticket to Nominating Committee: 90 days before the conference

Posting Instructions

1. If you want to share your thoughts on a proposal (remember these are just concepts, the actual language will be developed later), write your reply in the text box bellow the words Leave Reply, and in the box “Enter your comment here…”

 

2. If you want to respond to a comment that another NOW member has left regarding a proposal, click the small blue link that says “Reply” underneath said comment. It is very important that you click this reply button and not start another comment so that the conversation is easily followed and clear!

3. You MUST put your full name and chapter affiliation before every comment you leave. If a comment does not have a name and chapter affiliation it will not be approved. This is to ensure that only NOW members are commenting.

4. Remember be respectful and friendly! All NOW members want to work to improve the organization and it takes collaboration and patience on our part as a grassroots organization to make sure that all of our members voices are heard – even those with whom we may disagree with.

5. Be creative and don’t be afraid to say what you think! It is vital that you share your opinions — in order to create the best proposals possible we need to know what all of the members think! This site is for YOU to have your voices heard.

7 thoughts on “Conference: Proposal Nine

  1. Theresa Bergen, Rockland NOW, NY
    90 days I do not understand this at all. Why have a conference if its a done deal 90 days out?

    Like

  2. Theresa Bergen, Rockland NY NOW
    A little history… In 1985, neither slate ran an Executive VP. An individual ran for the position. At the Conference that individual decided to endorse one of the slates. The other slate availed itself of the opportunity to nominate a candidate for executive VP.
    Fast forward… I don’t like slates or nominating Committees. I think there should be a Committee which accepts materials from self nominations, checks that they have met the membership requirements and publishes materials. If someone is nominated at the conference they are responsible to publish there own materials.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Bonnie Shapiro, NNJ NOW

    In NJ we put together slates as well. A couple of terms back we had no one to run on the slate for Secretary, or it could have been Treasurer. By the time of our Conference, there was someone the slate had convinced to run who was not listed anywhere. We voted for her and she won.

    That is what I mean. It happens.

    All these years there have been nominations from the floor. Has anything happened to change that?

    Like

  4. I guess I’m not sure what you mean by a “vacancy” . Candidates for National NOW office must form a “slate” .So we vote for the slate, and not for individuals. These elections are held every four years, so people have lots of time to consider whether they’re interested in running. And delegates deserve ample notifications concerning those who are running. I know that when we’ve had contested elections, my chapter discusses the slates, and their proposals, ahead of time.
    I can imagine a situation in which a candidate may, for personal reasons, drop out of the race shortly before the conference. If that were to happen, I can see the need to have a nomination from the floor to fill out the slate. But I expect that would be rare.
    What I don’t agree with is allowing a slate to be put together at the last minute, and be nominated from the floor. This seems very unfair to the competing slate that has jumped through all the required hoops within the set deadlines. It seems underhanded to me.
    I do think the nominating committee should inform the membership well in advance that the deadline is approaching, particularly if they have not received notice that more than one slate will be competing.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. I understand the reasoning behind this. However, it seems awfully undemocratic to have the whole thing locked up before it ever happens, if there is only one candidate for each office. As I said at the webinar, if there is a vacancy, and someone is persuaded to run at the lat minute, that should be able to take place at the Conference. I realize that an appointment can be made later, but that does not add any excitement to the process or any democracy either. I also think that candidates should be able to withstand a challenge from the floor and voters should be able to pick the best candidate, even tho it might prove stressful or inconvenient.

    However, I do understand the arguments the others have made, so I would like to at least add language to this Proposal that if there is a vacancy for an office at the Conference, nominations will be taken from the floor.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I absolutely agree with this proposal. It’s never made any sense to me to require that candidates be vetted, asked to submit bios, etc to be shared with membership, and yet still accept nominations from the floor.

    Like

  7. An officer seat necessitating a move to D.C., it seems reasonable to have made the decision to run well in advance of the conference.

    Like

Comments are closed.