Category: Elections Process 2015 Q&A

Dan Lamson 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

Note: Dan has withdrawn from the race, but he completed his answers before withdrawing, so they will be posted to the site.

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

First off, I want to say that I love that the election is contested! I think it is a great testament to how the org has grown. I see it as a very good thing that more people are interested in the direction the organization is going.

I would love to see every election contested. I think it brings out good discussion and new or takes on things and new ideas to the forefront. This year, I think we have more candidates than ever because there is some distrust between staffers and board. I’m sorry that it is the case, and I am sure board is not as evil as is sometimes assumed. But people are upset this year. What do we want the OTW to be and how do we want it to work? There seems to be differing opinions here, and I think this is the crux of why there are so many more people running this year than normal.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

Is it possible? I am not sure. I imagine the next few weeks will determine several of these things. (I am writing this answer early on September 25.) I do not believe that board should influence the elections or the change the process mid-election. I believe all qualified candidates interested in running should be eligible, based on the eligibility requirements of the day they registered to run for board. I think there could, in future elections, be a mechanism to remove a disruptive/abusive candidate, but at this time, removing someone after they’ve registered and qualified is not something I would advocate were I on board.

I know everyone in the org doesn’t always get along. I hope this kind of excluding people for running for board, or attacking them does not become the norm. It is not something that should happen, and frankly makes the org look bad. I am not sure there is anything one board member could do to stop it, as you need a majority to get things done. But I can say right now, that I would not attempt to tamper with an ongoing election in this or any way if I am elected. When there is no election going on, that is the time to change the rules and perhaps clarify things to make sure this doesn’t happen in the future. I would support such measures.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

I am not sure what to make of the none to seven change. Perhaps it was a logical thing to do, since there has never been so many people running for election as there are this year. I know some years it has been hard to find candidates to fill empty seats. I do not think there was anything illegal or underhanded about the change. The current board functions more as an executive committee than a traditional board, and the larger executive committees are, the harder it is for things to get done.

As to the board voting people off, I discussed in conflict resolution answers, I feel that there needs to be a way to get abusive or bad board members off the board. The way it stood prior to this change was they could serve the full term being as bad of a person as they wanted. Now, I do not think this is something that should be used lightly or often. It should be only for egregious violations of the code of conduct. This should not be a response to remove someone because they are not who board wanted elected. And I don’t think any board would do this. I kind of see this as impeachment like they have in the US. It’s been used a few times, sometimes justly and successfully, but often it just makes the users look bad, and accomplishes nothing. I would not use this power lightly, but if there was a board member who was acting in a way unbecoming of an OTW board member, and would not change or resign on their own, I would be happy to have it.

Matty Bowers 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

In the past, committees could not afford to lose staff to Board. Now, many of the OTW committees are thriving and losing, or sharing, key personnel will not negatively impact the committees.

This means it’s time to turn our attention to Board. As both volunteers and members are aware, the OTW is facing numerous issues which should have been dealt with long ago. It’s past time for these concerns to be addressed so can we get the organization back on track.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

The Election committee should have full authority over elections. Allowing Board to interfere, especially when a current member is running, is a clear conflict of interest.

Should Board have any questions or concerns about the election process, these should be discussed with the Election committee well before the process starts. After the election process starts, Board should be required to step back and allow it to proceed without interference.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

In the past few years, the OTW has struggled to find seven people willing to serve on Board, let alone nine. In the future we may want to look at expanding, but first I think we need to get a full seven people on Board. After we’ve had several terms of stable leadership we can can consider expanding our numbers, if we feel it’s needed.

Our OTW members, those who have financially supported the organization, have voices that can and should be heard. If the Board is unethical enough to deliberately circumvent a valid election, members should call them on their actions. Per the bylaws, members can remove any director from office, with or without cause, by a vote of the majority of members. While this isn’t feasible at the moment, I would like to change that.

In this particular point in time, I do not believe the Board members serving another term would abuse the new bylaws and remove a newly elected candidate. I trust that together we can work on fixing the many, many problems that have been pointed out by both staff and members.

Katarina Harju 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

I think many of us have simply reached a point where we feel that there is no choice but to try and change the way the Board functions, and it’s clear that that can only be done from inside the Board. I believe we are all aware that it will not always be easy to change things, but if we can successfully implement clear policies for the Board, achieve more transparency, and in general change the Board’s culture for the better, then I think there would be more people willing to step up as candidates in the following elections as well.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

While I believe a professional and ethical Board would never behave in such a manner, I do still think that we need to implement strict policies for non-interference in the election process. The Elections committee should be allowed to carry out its work with the authority that the Board has given it in the first place, without any interference from the Board. I think punishing volunteers for showing an interest and getting involved falls under the same category as any other abusive behaviour toward volunteers, which is why we need to have clear policies for acceptable behaviour for Board members in general, and clear consequences when the lines of what is acceptable are crossed.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

I want to make a small correction to the question; according to the bylaws, the Board would not, in fact, have to wait for a candidate they approved of, but could appoint anyone they wanted to take the place of a Director that had been removed. Furthermore, the number of Directors is not set in the bylaws and only needs a resolution of the Board to be changed.

The timing of the change in the bylaws regarding the removal of a Director (August 2015) is unfortunate, and coupled with the reduction in the numbers of Board seats, it has understandably given rise to a lot of doubts regarding the Board’s motivations. What is important, however, is that the reduction in seats means that there will be five Directors for the next term; if I’m not incorrect, an absolute two-thirds majority would mean that all four other Directors would have to agree on the removal of any one Director, and I have to believe that not all of them would choose to behave so unprofessionally.

Atiya Hakeem 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

I had been giving serious consideration to running in the two terms previous to this one. While I was concerned at the direction the OTW’s leadership was taking and had ideas for where I wanted it to go instead, I felt then that it was more important for me to devote all my energy to my committee work, particularly while setting up Quality Assurance & Testing as a subcommittee.

This year, however, I decided that I could no longer stand back and wait for someone else to fix things. The situation with having only one person in charge of the finances and no overall fiscal policy was only getting worse, Board actions were becoming entirely opaque, the lack of representation of the OTW’s project-related committees was increasingly an issue, and the treatment of the volunteers who run the Org’s projects by directors was not improving. Many staffers and volunteers I spoke to had similar concerns to mine, so I made the decision to run, with the plan that I would try to convince others with concerns to join me.

It turned out, though, that I never had to try. Independently, other staffers had come to a similar conclusion, and stepped up to try to make things better.

(As an aside, at the time I decided to run, the change had not yet been made to reduce the number of seats to two.)

Obviously, it would be nice to have staffers wanting to run even when there is no crisis. I think that can be achieved by having a Board that is transparent, so potential candidates know what they’d be getting into; representative of varied OTW committees, so candidates can relate to Board points of view; and approachable, so OTW staffers and volunteers can get to know the directors and feel they can work with them effectively.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

The only way to prevent Board from having unlimited and arbitrary influence over the elections process is to change Article IX of the bylaws to remove Board’s power to unilaterally change the bylaws by a simple vote. I think this is a good idea in any case, but it’s particularly important for the elections process, as having Board interfere with elections risks calling their legitimacy into question and has the potential to make the entire OTW look bad in the eyes of our membership and the public. Changing this part of the bylaws is one of the things I intend to raise as a matter of urgency, if I am elected.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

I sincerely hope that three current incumbent directors would not consider negating the results of the election by voting off the winning candidates; it would show complete disregard for our membership, and I cannot believe that they would wish to do such a thing.

However, any bylaw change must be considered not just in terms of how we think the current Board will use it, but how it could be used or abused in future. I am extremely concerned that these changes, and in general allowing Board to change bylaws related to the elections process, are things that are extremely open to abuse by directors who wish to remain in control and suppress outside voices.

As I discuss in the question above, I think that we should protect the integrity of the elections process by removing this power from the hands of the Board.

Andrea Horbinski 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

No answer provided.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

No answer provided.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

No answer provided.

Aline Carrão 2015 Q&A: Election Process

Jenny McDevitt

After a few years of uncontested elections (including one which garnered 0 candidates initially), there are now more candidates than ever before for the smallest number of seats ever up for election. To what do you attribute this sudden surge of candidates, and what would you do during your time on the Board to promote consistent contested elections for Board seats?

I believe the increase in the number of candidates is due to two factors: on the one hand, a lot of committees are in a much healthier place now than they were a couple of years back, and can actually think long-term and spare staff to do board work; on the other hand, the current state of the board — with its directors completely removed from the org’s day-to-day work and with their communication issues with volunteers, staff and chairs — led to a desire for change in several parts of the organization.

In my opinion, the best way to guarantee we will keep this trend going is to work in volunteer and staff retention and to keep committees healthy so that more and more people can be interested in taking part in OTW governance, while at the same time working to make board a rewarding place to serve so people will feel motivated to run for it.

While the current election process is more independent than it was in previous years, it is still subject to some decisions made by the Board, which can be passed at any time without input from volunteers. It’s possible for the Board to even change the rules while an election is in progress to exclude some candidates or voters or to punish volunteers for visibly participating in the process. If elected, how would you ensure that each future election is unaffected by interests within the sitting Board?

The Election committee, in consultation with Volunteers & Recruiting and Legal, should have the final say in election matters, not board. And, in my opinion, any board member running for reelection should be required to step down from their board role in advance before the campaign starts.

What do you think about the fact that two changes to the bylaws (reduction in size of board from seven to nine [sic], and the ability of two-thirds of the board to vote off another member with or without cause) means the board could dilute the election process? Effectively, the standing board could vote off any candidate who wins and with whom they disagree until they reach a candidate of whom they approve. Are you concerned about this?

I think these are valid concerns. Even if these changes were made in good faith and taking into account the best for the OTW, they were short-sighted, because they can be exploited to interfere with the elections process and board composition. We need to address this, and set clearer rules as to when one board member can be voted out and who can be appointed in their place and under what circumstances.