ARMA Members-Voters
>
> Please pardon me for getting on the election issue again.


Personally, I see no need to ask for forgiveness for raising this issue so
soon after the election, or at any other time for that matter.


Certainly we can and should do better than 16%.


 While the turnout is better than last year, and maybe we should think of it
in terms of small increases are better than none, you're right in saying we
should do better.  ARMA has seen many changes over the past 8 months and now
that things seem to be settling down a bit, this will be an issue that will
receive some critical thinking.

The excuses to date have been very weak and I
> would like to hear some input on suggestions for increasing member
> participation.


Personally, I think Your attempts to work within the AL structure to
increase participation through direct questions submitted to the candidates
and presenting the responses to your Chapter was a brilliant idea.
Unfortunately, some found fault with it and it was brought to a halt.

I held a Chapter meeting in January to discuss the upcoming election and the
ARMA Leadership Structure (position titles, duties, terms of office, etc.)
with my Chapter and NO ONE was previously aware of ANY of this
information... a clear sign that the EMC (ARMA's Election Management
Committee) needs to do MUCH MORE in informing the membership.

We are at a critical stage in the competitive recognition and  position
> opportunities for our members. We depend upon our leadership
> (Board  Members) to
> represent and advance our profession.


No doubt we are still in a place to "strike while the iron is warm", because
I feel we missed to opportunity when it was hot.  But that was then and this
is now, and I think our present Leadership is poised to seize this
opportunity and take full advantage of it.  We're attempting to gain greater
speaker positioning at events that raise RIM issues and how RIM best
practices can assist organizations is achieving their goals and attaining
compliance with many of the key issues and initiatives being raised.  And
that's a start...

We should place close attention to
> their positions and vote to show our professional involvement and support
> of
> stated objectives.


More to the point, we should SHARE our opinions on key issues with them and
attempt to influence their positions, as many of us do with other elected
officials.  And I FULLY AGREE we should increase "OUR" professional
involvement, through speaking opportunities, responses to articles
mis-stating RIM issues and in other venues, whether it be as ARMA members or
RIM Professionals.

I tried to provide a more open approach this past year in
> accordance with the existing AL (Administrative Letter). These were
> rejected and
> blocked by the EMC resulting in candidates refusing to
> participate.  That's a
> weakness in itself.


A key issue here is taking a critical look at the ALs related to the
election system and making suggestions to the EMC for changes.  Things have
changed since they were last revised, and our profession is becoming more
involved in issues and more vocal than it once was.  The entire
"campaigning" concept should be re-evaluated and more opportunities for
candidates to speak openly on issues and voice their opinions on things
other than the canned topics in the application, at the candidate forum and
in the ARMA forum should be provided.  And I'm not speaking of "paid
opportunities" here, but encouraging candidate involvement with the
membership to engage them and get them interested in voting.  While this is
a BIT extreme, I think Jefferson was right about an informed electorate...
"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own
government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice,
they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard
Price, 1789. ME 7:253

> Othe suggestions have included : 1) Inclusion of voter turnout as a
> criteria

For Chapter of the Year award. (2) Free conference registration
> from voter drawing. (3) Award to chapter managers/coordinators for voting
> response. (4) Voting results that show chapters and region votes.
> (4)  Campaigning
> guidelines. The EMC screens and approves all candidates. Every  candidate
> is
> considered qualified to serve based upon the EMC slate  approval.
> Other suggestions?????


While I agree with many of the above suggestions, I'm not in concert with
turning over to the EMC "slate approval", after all, aside from the Chair of
the EMC, the EMC members are selected, NOT elected and we know how few
people within the ARMA membership volunteer for Committee work.

Here are some other suggestions:

1) Begin (electronic ballot) voting at the Conference, the day after the
Candidate Forum and continue it for one month from that point.

2) Request basic demographic info on the ballot (Region, Chapter, 099) to
attempt to determine participation and decide where efforts need to be made
to increase participation.

3) Produce PowerPoint presentations for use by Chapters at meetings PRIOR TO
ELECTION regarding the positions, their duties, the terms of office and GET
THE MEMBERS ENGAGED in the voting process.

4) Offer a webinar type session for a Candidate Forum following Conference
that is presented 2-3 times so anyone interested gets a chance to
participate... I counted heads at the forum in Chicago, and the turnout was
pretty bleak, but it was being held opposite ISG and other meetings.

5) ENGAGE WITH THE MEMBERSHIP... find out WHY people aren't voting.  I've
long said the general membership doesn't feel involved with the issues and
don't know the officers.  Have the EMC or CAC (Communications Advisory
Committee) make random calls on a weekly basis to members and ask if they
voted and if they know the names of 4-5 of the current officers.  I think
the results would be shocking...

6) HAVE THE LEADERSHIP ENGAGE with the membership... pick up the phone and
call 2-3 members a week at random and introduce yourselves and ask "Do you
have a couple of minutes to talk?" and ask prepared questions in a simple
phone survey manner, and REPORT THE FINDINGS on a monthly basis to the
at-large membership.

7) Send out a survey and ask:

1) Did you vote in the recent ARMA election?

a) If you answered NO,
1) Did you receive an electronic ballot notice?
2) Did you receive a reminder notice?
3) Did you receive a paper ballot?
4) Where you disinterested in voting?
5) Did you forget to vote?
6) Did you know any of the candidates?

b) If you answered YES,
1) Have you voted before?
2) Did you personally know any of the candidates?
3) Did you review their information on the ARMA website?
4) Did you speak to any candidates before the election?


Hopefully, there will be more responses to this post an the EMC, CAC and
overall ARMA Leadership will take notice.

I would like to thank Bill for bringing this issue up, and I commend his
efforts to attempt to get the voters engaged last year... pity the AL wasn't
clearly interpreted and the effort was short-circuited.  I believe we may
have seen a better turnout and if nothing else, a more informed electorate.

Larry
--
Larry Medina
Danville, CA
RIM Professional since 1972

List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance