Introduction
In November 2010 I wrote in The PASS Board Election Review Committee:
I would like to see the PASS Board Elections process and procedures reflect trust in and respect for the community.
In June 2011, PASS published the PASS ERC Recommendations document and a link to the document can be found here.
Good Work
I know the members of the Elections Review Committee. Some better than others, but I know each of them. They’re good people and I know they did their level best on behalf of the PASS Community. For that, they deserve – and have – my respect, admiration, and thanks.
The ERC did not have the final say in the matter, however. Their work was subject to approval by the PASS Board of Directors. I do not have details about that relationship. For example, I do not know if the PASS Board had the ability to “line-item veto” portions of the ERC’s recommendations; or to remove or discourage certain types of recommendations from consideration. Ultimately, the effectiveness of this document and the minor changes described therein are the sole responsibility of the PASS Board of Directors. They call the shots. They run the show.
My Observations
I’m encouraged. Although my personal trust and respect objectives for the PASS ERC were not achieved, I take courage from the fact that PASS admits there’s an issue. That’s the first step to effectively addressing any issue (see 12-step programs).
I’m encouraged by other news from PASS as well:
- The success of SQLRally and its adoption in Sweden.
- The PASS Summit 2013 will be in Charlotte NC.
- Karla Landrum joined PASS HQ.
Conclusion
PASS is a large organization with a history of slow and deliberate change. Andy Warren (Blog | @sqlAndy | SQLPeople) often reminds me that change is long ball. In this case, I’m comfortable with that.
P.S.
If you could write in one candidate for the PASS Board 2011 Elections, who would it be?
(Bear in mind comments are moderated on this blog so your responses will not immediately appear…)
:{>
Andy, I was a member of the ERC and thank you for your comments. I personally think that a write-in candidate is generally bad for PASS. If the committee had supported one I’d have joined in that support, but I think write-ins do more harm than good to the organization. They reflect ‘popular’ candidates whose agendas may not align with the good of the organization. The problems we faced last year were specifically addressed, and in addressing them I sincerely hope we eliminated the need for a write-in. Time will tell, and I hope others feel strongly enough about their PASSion to submit their candidacy when that opens later this summer.
Hi Allen,
Thanks for your response and for your efforts serving on the ERC.
I’m a little confused: You don’t feel the current process reflects popularity?
:{>
To some extent all elections reflect popularity. With the benefit of the NomCom, the candidates’ credentials and commitment are verified, and the interviews help determine the ability of the candidate to properly present their thoughts on issues important to PASS. Bypassing the NomCom via a write-in makes said candidate’s entry based purely on popularity, and I don’t think that helps build a strong organization.
Hi Allen,
I understand. I’m sure you understand this configuration makes for more slow and deliberate change – which is fine, if PASS wants things that way.
:{>
Andy,
Sorry I didn’t catch this when you first published it.
The PASS Board was under no legal obligation to accept or reject the recommendations of the ERC. The Board could do anything they wanted with the recommendations.
As far as influencing the ERC, there were two Board members on the ERC: me and Andy Warren. Andy is probably closer to the way you want elections run and I’m probably closer to the way you don’t want elections run. We agreed on some things and disagreed on others. I don’t think were able to unduly influence the five other members of the committee in the cases where we did agree. In fact, I was pretty focused on picking people to serve who would tell me to go jump in a lake if I tried to "unduly" influence them. Other than that there was very little contact between the Board and the ERC. The Board’s instructions were that nothing was off the table.
In regard to whether we accepted the ERC recommendations, we published both documents at the link you have above. Anyone can read the two and make that decision for themselves.
If you just want the short version, I wrote a blog post published on my site (http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/billg/archive/2011/06/22/pass-election-changes-for-2011.aspx) and the PASS Blog (http://www.sqlpass.org/Community/PASSBlog.aspx) highlighting what I thought the key changes were.
-Bill