Approved by FS 2/2/2010                                                             FS020210 2.g.1

Meeting of FA Elections Committee                                                January 25, 2010

Members: COB (vacant);  COE Thoms ; FAH Dorn (chair, notetaker); COSE (vacant); COSS Andzenge;  Spec C. Inkster, Prescott

Motion to refer 3. to the Constitutional Review Committee

1. Judy Dorn has agreed to chair this committee, but would be happy to rotate the duty to another committee member upon request.

2. Review of schedule for Spring 2010 elections – inspected, compared with FA Constitution, and approved by a quorum of the committee

3. FA president Jaede brought to the committee the Constitution’s language regarding the Elections Committee for review. Issues reviewed or identified by the committee, and now referred to the Constitution Committee to put into clear language:

a. The Elections Committee rejects the idea that this Committee screens, filters, or approves candidates. There is no need to restrict the number of candidates to 2, especially since IFO encourages approval voting or ranked-choice voting. Elections Committee consists of a maximum of 12 volunteers, not representatives elected for the job of serving as Electors. Giving such a committee the right to “approve” who runs is a recipe for abuse.

b. Elections Committee interprets “nomination” as a process of recruiting and identifying potential candidates, and accepts that the Committee, like Senate, is obliged to identify and encourage (recruit) candidates, and to check with those named whether they are willing to put their names forward. But the Committee’s obligation to nominate does not mean that the nominees will agree to become candidates; the Committee has no control over that. Only the names of those who have agreed to become candidates may be made public.

The Committee in effect is a group of faculty members who are given the same task of recruiting candidates that all FA members share, except that the Committee is instructed to focus on thinking of candidates early on.

c. No changes are identified for Article IX: Election Procedures.

· Section 3. Election Committee supports the petition process. This clause is valuable because A) it encourages faculty to nominate themselves in a timely way, by making it burdensome to delay; B) it prevents candidates from suddenly jumping into a race at the last minute (unless they can show  substantial support). It is important to allow the campus full opportunity to discuss and deliberate over all candidates.

· The Committee reads section 5 as saying that the Elections committee has nothing to do with recruiting unit representatives, and agrees.

d. Article XIII. Section 8, Subsection 16. Elections Committee.

This language needs clarification. First, Articles IV and V of this Constitution no longer have so many sections. (Perhaps simply say “under Articles IV and V”. )  Second, the stipulation of nominating 2 candidates is unclear. The Committee promotes the value of contested elections, but does not see itself as able to follow this rule beyond identifying and encouraging multiple candidates to run.

4. Thus far, the names called to the Committee’s attention are:

Negotiations: Michael Connaughton and Roland Specht-Jarvis;

IFO Board: Debra Leigh

5. Discussion of electronic voting demo held at IFO office Friday, Jan 22 (Dorn). Eballot is ultimate system, but expensive. IFO is weighing options, such as Campus-vote.com

If any faculty members have insight into options for electronic voting, contributions of ideas would be welcome.