In May of 2005, SGNA members had the opportunity to vote regarding a proposed bylaw change that would modify our process for electing executive board members. Currently, SGNA membership elects both board members and executive board members (i.e., President-elect, Secretary, and Treasurer). The proposed bylaw change suggested that the executive board members would be elected by the board of directors. As an "ex officio" member of the board, I was in full support of the proposal. During the business meeting, however, there was a vocal majority strongly opposed to this change, and the bylaw proposal was defeated.
As a result of the healthy discussion and vocal opposition, I expected the 2006 election to reflect this "passion" for electing our leaders. Unfortunately, the "passion" seems to belong to the few who attended the business meeting. Only 610 ballots were received from a membership of over 8,000. So I have to ask, what was that heated discussion all about? Members don't vote, so why shouldn't our board of directors make the decision about who would best serve on the executive board?
With our existing process in place, the nominations and elections committee has been tasked by the membership to have more than one nominee on the ballot for a position so that there is a "choice" of candidates. Because the executive committee must (and should) consist of seasoned board members, the board is always losing a valued board member-one nominee wins and one loses. And in my mind, we really all lose. Members who are willing and able to give the time required to serve on the SGNA board of directors are few and far between. Learning how to manage an association and effectively function as a board member takes time. What a waste to lose an experienced board member all in the name of "choices" on a ballot.
I also know, having served on the Certification Board of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (CBGNA) and as ex officio member of the SGNA board, members don't always know who is most effective as a board member. Popularity certainly shouldn't be the deciding criteria, but sometimes membership voting seems to reflect popularity more than credibility or leadership capability. Members aren't really privy to which director gets their work done on time and thoroughly, who has leadership skills, who shares their thoughts openly and honestly when discussing controversial issues or making difficult decisions, or who is respected by others outside the organization. I suppose in my mind, if we aren't willing to trust the board that we elected, then why did we elect them in the first place?
And perhaps the greatest issue is, "Why aren't we participating in elections?" I've had colleagues tell me the reason they don't participate is because they don't know the candidates. And that can certainly be the case if you are not in the position to be active nationally, attending meetings and interacting with others at the national level. But that doesn't really excuse a member from fulfilling what I see as the "obligation" of membership. If you want to be a part of the Society, then take your role as member seriously. Take the time to read what the candidates have written and cast your vote as best you can. A measly 5% of members voting doesn't portray much of an interest in the Society or its welfare.
The 2007 elections are around the corner and each of us has the opportunity to participate in the welfare of our specialty and association by participating in the voting process. The Nominations and Elections committee has spent hours recruiting, interviewing, and selecting candidates eligible to hold national office. The candidates have negotiated time away from family and work if elected, committed to make personal sacrifices during their tenure, and spent a great deal of thought and time writing their biographies to communicate who they are and what they stand for. Our colleagues deserve our time to read what they've shared and vote for our candidate. Our Society is worthy of members who take the time to invest in voting for leadership. I challenge each of you to make the effort to vote this year. If not, then perhaps it is time to revisit that bylaw change again-to accomplish what's best for the Society. I suggest voting participation for 2007 will be a good indication of what needs to happen.