Return to self-nomination Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Thu, June 1, 2000 at 11:21 PM GMT (Thu, June 1, 2000 at 7:21 PM EDT)
||Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 98
||Re: comments on nomination rules
>>1. People who are nominated outside the Nominating Committee's|
be called public candidates, not self-nominees. The
is degrading and a misnomer of the >process
>>by which one gets on the ballot
through this alternative to the
>>Nomination Committee slate.
>I fail to see
how calling a person a "self-nominee" is degrading. It >means that the person put
themselves up for nomination - which is >_exactly_ what is happening here. How is
>At most one can say that one isn't "really" a nominee until one
is >on the ballot, but that is being officious and picking nits, IMNSHO.
First of all, I agree that the term "self nominee" is degrading.
It makes the nominee look and feel as though he/she is tooting his/her own horn and
could not be nominated in any other way.
Second, why should that be the only case
for public nominations? Usually, nominees come from the general membership
and are seconded. I should think that self nomination AND nomination by members
should be allowed, plus only a second should be needed to place the nominee on the
ballot. The nominee can always decline the nomination.
entire process smacks of collusion on the part of the existing board to prevent true
bottom-up representation. The 10% figure is unrealistic and unworkable, in
my opinion. The window available to gain the required support under the circumstances
is also not feasible, again preventing true representation by the membership.
rights are being violated throughout the entire process.