-Abby

Welcome, Abby.

The current procedure for electing the national board excludes many SPJ members from participating:

• SPJ members who are not affiliated with a chapter and members of chapters that do not send delegates to the convention have no say in who will lead the Society.
• Most candidates rely on direct contact with delegates at the convention to win election. Therefore, even if a chapter is represented by delegates, most chapter members are unlikely to have enough information before the convention to direct or even influence how chapter delegates vote.
• The vast majority of SPJ members who do not attend the convention and cannot vote have little incentive to become engaged in governance of the Society.

Disenfranchisement of members is a major concern. There are no SPJ chapters in eight states. In some states that have chapters the nearest chapter may be hundreds of miles away, making a member’s active participation unlikely, if not impossible. A year ago, about 1,100 of SPJ’s 8,200 members were not assigned to chapters because no chapter served the geographical areas in which they lived.

Only 39 of SPJ’s 70 pro chapters and 21 of 120 student chapters sent delegates to the convention in Las Vegas. Some, but not all, of the absent chapters were ineligible to vote because they failed to file annual reports or did not put on a sufficient number of programs. Regardless of the reason 31 pro chapters and 99 student chapters were not represented, their members had no say in the election.

In the end, 75 pro delegates and 21 student delegates, 1 percent of SPJ’s members, elected the 2011 officers and board members running for vacant at-large seats. Because delegates vote within regions for regional directors, a far smaller percentage elected those board members.

The current system discourages member participation in Society governance. Ultimately, it reduces the pool of potential candidates for national office. For example, although many SPJ members have expressed concern about recent board actions, only a few current board members face contested elections.

The amendment before this year’s convention is designed to give every SPJ member an opportunity to have a say in who leads the Society. If more members believed they could influence policy at the national level through the election process, I think they would exercise their right to vote and might consider running for the national board.

Please read the amendment, the blog at spj.org discussing it, and the memo explaining how it would work if enacted.

Despite the benefits one-member, one-vote offers, it has attracted some pretty vocal opposition, and I would like to respond to those arguments.

A central premise of the opposition is that most SPJ members are not interested in governance issues. Noting that one-member, one-vote amendments generated by the national board have come to the convention before and were defeated. They view those past efforts as evidence that this amendment is unnecessary. Those seriously flawed proposals were very different than the one before you this year.

Ultimately, opponents argued that the change to one-member, one-vote should be driven by the membership, not the board.

Direct democracy should be a feature that should come from the people to the leaders, not the leaders to the people. SPJ’s bylaws call for a very workable process for SPJ’s members to bring a proposal to the convention floor themselves if 10 chapters call for a bylaws amendment to be considered and voted upon by delegates. If only 10 chapters out of about 70 or so want it, then let’s consider changing our rules.

Well, after the national board in April refused to bring the amendment to the floor, the boards of 10 chapters voted to do so. They demonstrated the error in the opponents’ initial premise, that there is no support among SPJ members for this amendment. That action is especially significant because the provision allowing chapters to bring an amendment to the floor has been part of the bylaws for decades. In my 42 years as an SPJ member I cannot recall chapters ever before invoking it to bring an amendment to the convention floor.

Regarding the merits of one-member, one-vote, opponents complain that it would be too expensive for candidates to mount campaigns targeting 8,000 SPJ members. The memo explaining the amendment suggests several ways SPJ can help reduce the cost of campaigning. It will take greater effort to campaign, but I doubt that the added cost will be significant.

Next, they say, “Running an online election is a rather complicated task for an already overburdened and smaller-size SPJ headquarters staff to administer during its busiest time of year.” Let me assure you that the Bylaws Committee worked closely with Joe Skeel as it drafted the amendment, and neither Joe nor Linda Hall, who coordinates membership and delegate matters, has voiced concerns about implementing one-member, one-vote. Joe has discussed the technical and policy aspects of online elections with managers of other associations and is evaluating websites that provide such services.

Opponents argue that the delegate system serves SPJ members well because chapter members can express their views about candidates to delegates, and delegates can vote in accordance with those members’ views. There are several errors in that logic. The only communication SPJ members get about candidates are bios published in Quill and on the SPJ website. Candidates send emails stating positions to delegates and chapter presidents, but not to the membership at large, who do not have sufficient information before the convention to advocate in support of specific candidates in contested elections. Although members elect chapter officers and directors, there is no guarantee that a chapter’s delegates to the convention have ever stood for election. In other words, rank and file members have no say in who represents the chapter at the convention and cannot express dissatisfaction with a delegate’s actions by unelecting him or her.

Once again, I urge you to vote for one-member, one-vote when it comes to the floor in the final business meeting next Tuesday. If you have any questions or comments about this amendment or the others the national board proposed post them to the blog. I would be happy to answer your questions directly, but if you have them other SPJ members undoubtedly have the same concerns. If we discuss them on the blog those members will reap the benefit.

I’m in the conference hotel (Sheraton) and have a room booked for Saturday-Monday (with Tuesday check-out).

I’m VP of the Northwest Arkansas Pro Chapter. Email me for details: kkinder@nwaonline.com