Bylaws Change - Removal of Nomination to Alumni Council by 50 petitions (formerly allowing for a position on the ballot).
One of the bylaws changes against which I argued most vehemently was the removal of nomination to Alumni Council by 50 valid signatures. The language of the previous bylaws (prior to April 17, 2015) did not indicate that nominations accompanied by signed petitions of 50 alumni association members were subject to review and approval of the nominations committee. Indeed, the bylaws language indicated that these are two independent processes. That has all changed now. Nomination by petition from active alumni members has been eliminated, as has nominations from the floor of council. You can now self-nominate or be nominated by the Nominations Committee. This bylaws change (next paragraph, additions are noted in CAPS) will allow the Nominations Committee to review, and have the final decision, regarding all nominations to Council.
" the Nominating Committee shall give due consideration, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, to their (sic) nominees' support of the Association's mission AND PROGRAMS, their history of volunteer service to the University, THE ASSOCIATION and to their communities, THEIR LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE, their diversity and representation by colleges, organized alumni units (including service as a Council Member), graduation years, and geographical areas."
1. I questioned the vague language in this paragraph - if one is a member of the association, does that not imply that one agrees with the mission? I don't join groups if I disagree with their mission. I was told that membership was necessary but not sufficient.
2. I questioned whether everyone had to have prior experience with the association. Oftentimes members of an organization develop what is called "groupthink" - insiders agree with each other, oftentimes to the detriment of important information to which they no longer have access because of the closed nature of the group. Only allowing people with experience with Penn State Alumni Societies (at the local or national level) to participate on the Alumni Council potentially could eliminate the infusion of new ideas. Opposing ideas and diversity of perspectives sharpens everyone's thinking. To me, claims of supporting diversity are weakened when people who love Penn State, but who have not had the opportunity to participate in alumni associations at the local level, could be prevented from serving our university on Alumni Council. As a non-Pennsylvania resident, I am painfully aware that there are many fewer opportunities for me to contribute to my University than would be available if I lived in Pennsylvania. It is concerning to me that Penn Staters could be excluded because of where they live.
3. I argued that Penn State Alumni were smart and could decide for themselves who could best represent them on the Alumni Council. Even the requirements to run for President of the United States are less restrictive - be 35 years old, be a natural born citizen. Why should criteria for Alumni Council be more restrictive and why should members of the alumni association not be allowed to elect from among all those alumni who volunteer to serve?
Although I was not the sole person concerned about the power invested in the Nominations Committee and its ability to restrict the pool of people who could appear on the ballot, I regret that there was such little support from the vast majority of council members.
One of the bylaws changes against which I argued most vehemently was the removal of nomination to Alumni Council by 50 valid signatures. The language of the previous bylaws (prior to April 17, 2015) did not indicate that nominations accompanied by signed petitions of 50 alumni association members were subject to review and approval of the nominations committee. Indeed, the bylaws language indicated that these are two independent processes. That has all changed now. Nomination by petition from active alumni members has been eliminated, as has nominations from the floor of council. You can now self-nominate or be nominated by the Nominations Committee. This bylaws change (next paragraph, additions are noted in CAPS) will allow the Nominations Committee to review, and have the final decision, regarding all nominations to Council.
" the Nominating Committee shall give due consideration, AMONG OTHER FACTORS, to their (sic) nominees' support of the Association's mission AND PROGRAMS, their history of volunteer service to the University, THE ASSOCIATION and to their communities, THEIR LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE, their diversity and representation by colleges, organized alumni units (including service as a Council Member), graduation years, and geographical areas."
1. I questioned the vague language in this paragraph - if one is a member of the association, does that not imply that one agrees with the mission? I don't join groups if I disagree with their mission. I was told that membership was necessary but not sufficient.
2. I questioned whether everyone had to have prior experience with the association. Oftentimes members of an organization develop what is called "groupthink" - insiders agree with each other, oftentimes to the detriment of important information to which they no longer have access because of the closed nature of the group. Only allowing people with experience with Penn State Alumni Societies (at the local or national level) to participate on the Alumni Council potentially could eliminate the infusion of new ideas. Opposing ideas and diversity of perspectives sharpens everyone's thinking. To me, claims of supporting diversity are weakened when people who love Penn State, but who have not had the opportunity to participate in alumni associations at the local level, could be prevented from serving our university on Alumni Council. As a non-Pennsylvania resident, I am painfully aware that there are many fewer opportunities for me to contribute to my University than would be available if I lived in Pennsylvania. It is concerning to me that Penn Staters could be excluded because of where they live.
3. I argued that Penn State Alumni were smart and could decide for themselves who could best represent them on the Alumni Council. Even the requirements to run for President of the United States are less restrictive - be 35 years old, be a natural born citizen. Why should criteria for Alumni Council be more restrictive and why should members of the alumni association not be allowed to elect from among all those alumni who volunteer to serve?
Although I was not the sole person concerned about the power invested in the Nominations Committee and its ability to restrict the pool of people who could appear on the ballot, I regret that there was such little support from the vast majority of council members.
