Our Election Process

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

I have been trying to get the Board and Nominating Committee for four years to change our Election Process. As a member of the board it is expected that I support board decisions even if I am in the minority. Since I am no longer a member of the board, I feel that it is my responsibility to put my position to the membership and let them decide. Below is an attempt to explain my position. If you agree, I would ask that you contact members of the board and let them know.

======================================
The nomination process and the election are clearly intertwined. Some people want to change the nominating process because they see it as the "fix" to what, I believe, is really a flawed election process.

What's wrong with the processes? As a combined entity, they promote the impression of a "good old boys" organization that controls all access to decision making positions. Although we understand that it's difficult to get people to step up, we actually have been very good at bringing in new people, and there isn't any "power" to speak of, perception is reality and to many people, we are a closed group.

Today, the Nominating Committee presents a slate of candidates to the membership electronically. Additional nominations can be made at the annual meeting, provided the nominees are eligible voting members and have agreed to serve. The way the current election is conducted, the single nominating committee slate is electronically voted on and the election is OVER before the annual meeting, because a majority of ballots are already cast. Therefore, anyone nominated from the floor has no chance. The call for nominations is a farce and irrelevant. Clearly, this makes the election process a scam. Sorry, I have no other word for it.

I have been thinking about this for a while and actually have a suggestion for a moderate change to the election process, that I think will overcome some of the grumblings I have heard from members and my own concerns. In addition, in most cases, it will save money and staff time.

First, the nomination process … I believe what we have done in the past is reasonable and requires no fundamental change, however, we should note that the Nominating Committee does have the opportunity to nominate more than one person for any given position.

For the election process, I proposed a minor change …

1. The Nominating Committee prepares a slate just as they do now with one candidate for each open position.
2. An email notice with the slate and election process is sent to ALL members, but NO vote is called for and NO ballots are cast.
3. At the Annual meeting, the President (or whomever is presiding) calls for nominations from the floor. This can be done as a slate or as individual positions.
4. If there are no additional nominations, the President calls for the Secretary to cast a single vote yielding a unanimous vote for the only candidate(s).
5. If ALL positions are filled with a unanimous vote, the meeting is adjourned normally.
6. If there is a nomination, creating a contest for any particular seat, then a motion is made "Suspending the meeting" with Adjournment to occur at the conclusion of the election. (This prevents the process from violating the bylaws)
7. All nominees are invited to attend the board meeting held at the convention as observers.
8. Then, Ballots are emailed within one week following the convention to be returned within two weeks from the mailing. (need a deadline)
9. When the two weeks are up, the ballots are counted, a winner is declared, and the conclusion of the election signals the adjournment of the annual meeting.

Explanation:
In the event that there are no floor nominations this process actually takes less time and thus less money. In the event that there are floor nominations this process enables all members to recognize and vote for nominees of their choice. This process eliminates the pre-meeting casting of ballots which currently makes floor nominations silly and irrelevant. There is some concern that the proposed process may cause longer time on the meeting floor, but in fact there is NO difference between the current process and the proposed process except that ballots are cast post-meeting instead of pre-meeting. The issue of whether candidates are allowed to speak at the meeting or not is a meeting time decision by the President or presiding officer.

=====================================

Thanks for reading.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

I think it sounds reasonable.

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

Seems like a good, well thought-out plan to me.

 

[Susan Gittlen MCPF]

"At the Annual meeting, the President (or whomever is presiding) calls for nominations from the floor. This can be done as a slate or as individual positions."

What if somebody would like to nominate somebody but cannot attend the meeting? Not all members attend the meeting or the Convention. How would that be handled?

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

"At the Annual meeting, the President (or whomever is presiding) calls for nominations from the floor. This can be done as a slate or as individual positions."

What if somebody would like to nominate somebody but cannot attend the meeting? Not all members attend the meeting or the Convention. How would that be handled?

The easiest and most straight forward thing would be to ask someone who is attending to place the nomination.
Keep in mind that a nomination will require a second and an acceptance and agreement to serve by the nominee.

I suggest that if you can't get someone attending the meeting to make the nomination, then the person probably doesn't have much of a chance to get elected anyway.

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

I think a straight forward method of getting on the ballot as well as a clear path to participation on committees could bring nothing but good.

 

[Kai Vanuffelen]

For two years in a row I have not received ballot-papers, so was unable to vote. To me this does not matter, since mostly there is only one candidate per position, so this person gets elected anyway.
What Cliff proposes makes perfect sense and I support it.

 

[Russ Wood]

The easiest and most straight forward thing would be to ask someone who is attending to place the nomination.
Keep in mind that a nomination will require a second and an acceptance and agreement to serve by the nominee.

I suggest that if you can't get someone attending the meeting to make the nomination, then the person probably doesn't have much of a chance to get elected anyway.

Sometimes an illness can keep someone from attending, and as you mention in such a case, the nomination can still be made as you suggest.

For clarification, lets hypothetically say that only one additional nomination for only one position is made at the meeting (say president). From what you are saying, a motion can be made to hold the election for all of the positions (except president), and that single position would then be done the way you suggested. Am I understanding this correctly?

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

Sometimes an illness can keep someone from attending, and as you mention in such a case, the nomination can still be made as you suggest.

For clarification, lets hypothetically say that only one additional nomination for only one position is made at the meeting (say president). From what you are saying, a motion can be made to hold the election for all of the positions (except president), and that single position would then be done the way you suggested. Am I understanding this correctly?

That is what I have proposed.

 

[Mira Bishop]

I regularly attend all regional PPFA meetings and I have no clue who nominees are or who nominates them. I am presented (verbally) with a list of names (typically people I don't know), one person for the position. It would be nice if the nominees would say a few words about themselves and the experience they have so we would know who are we voting for. It would be also nice to know who nominates whom, when, why and how. The same happens on national level, I just hear about the changes in Vegas. It appears as a private deal.

 

[Randy Parrish CPF]

I believe several emails go out to every member asking for board nominations. Then the nominations go to the nominating committee. Every email that comes tends to look the same.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

In the past nominations were only solicited from organization "leaders," but the last two years, requests for nominations were emailed to all members.

The nominating committee then decides on a slate to present to the membership.

If you didn't get them, you should check the email PPFA has for you on FindAPictureFramer.com and make sure it is correct.

 

[Russ Wood]

Cliff, what you suggest seems to make sense to me.

What are the reasons given by those that are apposed to this approach?

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

Cliff, what you suggest seems to make sense to me.

What are the reasons given by those that are apposed to this approach?

Ummmm, I guess I'd rather they said themselves, because I am likely to put a sarcastic and negative spin on it.

 

[Mikki Kavich MCPF]

This was the first year I knew anything about more than one of the nominees. In the past I have to say I just voted yes thinking someone thought they could do the job. Now that I know more people and am more involved I think it would be great if nominees gave you a quick "if I am elected" rundown.

 

[Mira Bishop]

This was the first year I knew anything about more than one of the nominees. In the past I have to say I just voted yes thinking someone thought they could do the job.

I am not challenging anyone within PPFA boards, regional or national. I am challenging the information process and its perception. Status quo only contributes towards “old boys club” gossip (even though many board members are women). Informed members and transparent elections would only make PPFA organization stronger. PPFA communication with member shops is important and crucial in (re) creating an organization image while strengthening members loyalty. This is what I think should be done:

1. One month before elections an email should be sent to all members. The email body should consist of :

-Who is the nomination board, list of names

- ask members to submit their suggested nominees, explain why is this person suited for the position and submit a short bio (5-6 sentences)


2. A week before elections an email should go out to all members with all nominees names stating which position are they nominated for. Each nominee should have a short biography and also an explanation if they were nominated by the committee or the nomination came from a member.


3. All nominees should respond to the email and confirm that they are ready and willing to serve.


4. If the nomination board finds any of the nominees unsuited for the positions and rejects the nomination, this should be clearly explained
in a separate message.


An informed member would be much more motivated and inspired to get involved. Transparency is crucial for any organization. It eliminates “he said she sad”. If any of you have read PPFA criticism on different boards transparency was the #1 objective.

I would sincerely like to see PPFA grow. In order to do this we have to listen to (very loud) criticism and implement changes. I don’t think above described pre- election process would have much influence on a selection of a new board members, but I do think it would create a positive feeling about the organization. I would like my suggestion to be viewed as a start of conversation and not as some perfect and definitive process put together by Mira. Thanks.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

I am not challenging anyone within PPFA boards, regional or national. I am challenging the information process and its perception. Status quo only contributes towards “old boys club” gossip (even though many board members are women). Informed members and transparent elections would only make PPFA organization stronger. PPFA communication with member shops is important and crucial in (re) creating an organization image while strengthening members loyalty. This is what I think should be done:

1. One month before elections an email should be sent to all members. The email body should consist of :

-Who is the nomination board, list of names

- ask members to submit their suggested nominees, explain why is this person suited for the position and submit a short bio (5-6 sentences)


2. A week before elections an email should go out to all members with all nominees names stating which position are they nominated for. Each nominee should have a short biography and also an explanation if they were nominated by the committee or the nomination came from a member.


3. All nominees should respond to the email and confirm that they are ready and willing to serve.


4. If the nomination board finds any of the nominees unsuited for the positions and rejects the nomination, this should be clearly explained
in a separate message.


An informed member would be much more motivated and inspired to get involved. Transparency is crucial for any organization. It eliminates “he said she sad”. If any of you have read PPFA criticism on different boards transparency was the #1 objective.

I would sincerely like to see PPFA grow. In order to do this we have to listen to (very loud) criticism and implement changes. I don’t think above described pre- election process would have much influence on a selection of a new board members, but I do think it would create a positive feeling about the organization. I would like my suggestion to be viewed as a start of conversation and not as some perfect and definitive process put together by Mira. Thanks.

Except for your #4 that is almost exactly what happens.

But, many, many people don't read their emails. Some have the wrong email address in the PPFA DB (found TWO this week!).

You'd probably be surprised how FEW nominations come in.

As for #4, if there are multiple nominations the nominating committee may choose to nominate one even though all are "qualified." There is no precedent for a nominating committee to disclose their deliberations, nor should there be, because that would inhibit deliberations.

Yes, more people need to pay attention to the elections and the emails that go out concerning them.

Our nominating committee performs the roll that such a committee performs in most organizations. They perform it well, with proper deliberations. The PROBLEM comes when their nominations are the ONLY practical way for anyone to get elected.

 

[Cliff Wilson MCPF]

Pat,
All PPFA national communications to you goes to attachez1@aol.com which is the email address in the database for you.
The aol domain sometimes has trouble with deliveries which may be why you haven't received a ballot.
We sometimes have trouble with registrations because aol.com emails often don't get through.

I guarantee a ballot was emailed to the email address on file for every member. It may not have been read, or it may not have gone through due to other factors.

PPFA has NOT lost 80% of it's members. We are actually way up over last year which was slightly up over the year before.

I agree that any listing for MA should include all of the companies with an offer.

 

[Gregory K. Norris CPF]

I had to have been one of AOL's last paid subscribers. Their server will reject as spam almost anything that is sent to multiple addresses. In order to receive the emails from PPFA that go to the membership, you should get a free email account from one of the big companies like Yahoo or Google. You could also use an email account from your web domain. But you will miss a lot, and not just from PPFA if you rely solely on AOL.

 

[Pat Kotnour]

I wrote this 4 days ago and have been reluctant to post it because of the backlash that I know will be coming. But judging from the number of PPFA members who walked by me or my booth at the WCAF show without as much as a hello, I'd say that I have nothing to lose. FTR: we once again had a great show even without the majority of the PPFA membership.



As a long time member of PPFA and one who has supported the organization in every way possible, I too have had some major doubts about the election process. Cliff's word for it seems to be pretty spot on. But a even bigger question is, how can an organization, where it's members are from all over the country and the world, have an election process that excludes most everyone who isn't nominated by a committee of people.....who have been selected by....who? And then the only way that a member who may want to get involved can get on the ballot, if they are not chosen by the committee, is to go to the meeting in Las Vegas. It doesn't matter that they may be on the east coast or out of the country and the cost is too great for them to travel so far. But then again, even if they can afford to go they would have to nominate themselves, if they don't know someone who can do it for them, and since it's already a done deal.......well you get the picture.



Cliff is right, the process is terribly flawed. But there is a bigger problem with the process that Mira has already brought up. I have been a member for years and never once have I received an election ballot of any kind. Not only do I not receive ballots, I never get any information from PPFA national, or my own local chapter unless I call and ask for it. Although one chapter sends me their news letter, the only time I hear from PPFA is when they are looking for a donation or sponsorship. So if you wonder why PPF has lost 80% or more of it's membership in the last 5 or 6 years, it isn't just the economy. It's the lack of communication and a GOB & G attitude that Cliff alluded to that has turned so many people off.

I know that I am probably going to get nailed to the wall for what I am about to say, but I think it needs to be said. I speak to thousands of framers every year and have a pretty good handle on the pulse of the industry. As a "professional" organization which depends on members for strength and financial stability, it seems that PPFA has been overly focused on the certification program and publishing books while the membership keeps declining year after year. Maybe it would be wise for the board, educators, and all the MCPF's and CPF's to think about what those letters will mean if PPFA ceases to exist. Which at the rate of lost membership will be sooner rather than later, if more attention isn't paid to getting new members and keeping the old ones. Without numbers, all the credentials in the world won't keep PPFA afloat.



While I realize that the organization is mostly volunteer, the way I see it is that the chapters need to be communicating with their members more and so does national. The member advantage program was a good start, but from what I can tell, it is having little or no effect on new membership. Either that or those of us who are participating are not being informed of who the new members are. Since the program began last Oct. I have received no requests for the $25 GC that all new members should receive from my company when joining. We can't give it to them if we don't know who they are. The one chapter I receive a monthly news letter from has been listing the companies taking part in the MA program, but my company has not been listed for the second month in a row. When I asked why, they wanted to know if I wanted to advertise with them. It appears that this chapter expects me to pay them to have my company appear in their news letter. Every company participant should be listed on every chapters communication feed and we shouldn't have to pay for the privilege. We already do that with our donations to the cause. National should be sending the info out as well. Isn't that the whole idea of the program? To give people a reason to join and to stay?



I still believe that PPFA is a good, worthwhile organization. But from all the comments I get when shops call to order and I ask if they are a member so I can give them the discount we offer through the program, most of them say, "Not anymore! I used to be but couldn't find any advantage." And some will say, "what's PPFA?"

Maybe it's time to stop spending so much time and money on projects that have no effect on shoring up the organization, and start working on getting the membership back on track. The member advantage program could be a great way to bring in new people in and get the old ones back, but the advantages of belonging have to be communicated better to members and non members alike. The voting process must also be changed to be more transparent and inclusive as well. The foundation needs work and if it isn't attended to soon, there won't be one left to build on.