Overall           

The current nomination process has the ability to take into consideration the recommendations of the state association and regional groups but at the same time the Nominating Committee has the ability to take into consideration other factors that may be  needed to achieve association overall goals.  One of the benefits of the proposed change is to allow state associations more input into the selection process.  Potentially it would strengthen state associations.  However it will not necessarily produce a more diverse board that truly represents all of the members of ICMA.

           

In one sense, this is a throwback to how VPs were elected many years ago.  It worked then and would probably work now although the whole issue of diversity is, I believe a separate issue.  Either the association wants regional representation that is handled consistently or it wants diversity but the two do not necessarily go together as one component.

 

Would this system provide the true level of appropriate leadership?  Would it discourage the best candidates from trying?

 

Move on.  Our country and profession have more important issues than whose turn it is to be an ICMA vice president.  ICMA moved from the state-driven nomination process to a association-driven process.  The new process works.

 

Communication of the goal and consistency in the nominating process across the state and affiliate organizations is critical.

 

Nominating Committee members need to be cognizant of rotations and make sure it is implemented.

 

The Midwest and Northeast already use this process, with the exception of 'expanding the pool to be more diverse by allowing for the recruitment of additional candidates ('Prior to the first regional summit, regional nominating committees would receive the list of all candidates and their profiles so that state and board           leadership would know how representative the candidate pool was. This could allow for additional recruitment of candidates if any gaps in representation were anticipated.') is unfair and unnecessary. Giving everyone the same opportunity to apply and maintain the petition option, if used properly, should be adequate. Everyone needs to realize that the demographic composition of our organization sometimes doesn't lend itself readily to diversity-some regions are just not diverse. Allowing everyone the same opportunity to be part of the Board represents the fairest selection process.

 

I think this issue is more important to a few who really enjoy the politics of associations.  For the vast membership, we don't care, there doesn't appear to be that much wrong with what we have and I don't see much of an improvement with the new proposal.  What ICMA provides to its members is much more important than who is temporarily on this board.  The members need to maintain control on any issue of substance to the profession via a vote of the membership; otherwise this board oversees the financial operations of the business side of ICMA and that is not on the minds of the members who are out in the world delivering the Council-Manager product.

 

I don't think there is a perfect process.  The process described is slightly better than what is in place now.  Perhaps over time it would be better but there is still the possibility that entrenched individuals could dominate/nominate.  The concern is that presidents of state associations ascend after several years of           serving on boards.  I can see a situation where some entrenchment could occur, but involving other affiliate groups may mitigate.  I remain undecided, but open to trying something new.

 

Concerns

 I'm very wary of this proposal.  In particular, I'm concerned that regional parochialism will trump diversity.  It's also not plain to me how strong the protocols will be to protect larger states in the region overwhelming the need for represenattion to be diverse in termsof state diversity.

 

I am afraid some good people would get shut out at the affiliate level.  How do we ensure we hear the voice of all those who want to serve?

 

Giving those associations with an ICMA affiliation/partnership agreement direct involvement and responsibility for the nomination of ICMA vice president candidates would dilute the potential for ICMA to build the association's strength by maximizing its own resources and could trend towards elite governance thereby diluting pure diversity.  ICMA members presently can be members of affiliate organizations and formally delegating nomination authority to external organizations is unnecessary and of dubious benefit.

 

Will this hurt people who - due to budget constraints - have had to  pursue being involved in ICMA over their state associations for years?  For instance, someone may be very involved at the ICMA level and not as much at the state level.  Would they still have the same ICMA leadership opportunities under this structure?

 

I do not believe appointments should be tied to us entering into an affiliation/partnership agreement.

 

At times the leadership of state associations can be.unprofessional, not subscribing to the same values as that of ICMA. Allowing state and regional organizations to pick future ICMA leaders may put individuals in leadership positions that do not subscribe the same values and principles as those promoted by ICMA. LCMA's leaders should be beyond reproach. I am not sure that this change would accomplish that.

 

These recommendations perpetuate the 'good old boy' system.

 

I like the current process.  I think election to the state organizations can be very political and it becomes who you know, rather than qualifications-based.

 

I would object to the inclusion of the various affiliates on each regional nominating committee. The reason is that while each state association has one vote on each committee, the affiliates have one vote on ALL regional committees giving them a larger voice in the total Board makeup than the individual state associations.

 

Concern that those nominated would not be the best candidates. sometimes it seems like local affiliates rotate responsibilities based on who raises their hand.  it would not be good if this were the way candidates for vice president were chosen.

 

ICMA, itself, should within its own professional members achieve these goals without diluting the professionalism of its governance thru influence of others who know and care little of professional/ethical standards of ICMA.

 

Need clarification on how states that have not signed affiliation agreements would be handled.

 

Agree that it would be better understood but some regional orgs are very 'Clique-ish' and if you aren't in the clique, you would have no opportunity to serve nationally. I would hate for members to be 'shut out' of ICMA because of this. Also, those relocating to different regions would be at a definite disadvantage as they are unknown locally but may have a distinguished service history elsewhere.

 

The dynamics would vary depending on the # of states in a region.  In Mountain Plains, for example, potential exists for lobbying of a few state presidents so a decision is essentially made before the committee meets.  Seems like this structure opens the door for more influence of lobbying, deal-making or future promises/exchanges.

 

What you would be creating is another 'good old boy' system officially. If regions want to do this that's fine but the nominating committee should not be bound by these rotational 'agreements' particularly if they work against a diverse board. I trust the current nominating process.

 

Diversity

Forced diversity is not a professional goal, it is a social goal. We are a professional orgainzation and out best and brightest should serve our membership. These people will rise to the top in recognition of their accomplishments, not by gender, race or creed.

 

With each region nominating candidates in isolation, the process will maintain geographic diversity and enhance relations with state and affiliate organizations, but racial, ethnic and gender diversity may not be advanced.  The affiliates (IHN, NFBPA...) should have representation as well to promote diversity.

 

Diversity will be driven by the affiliate organizations and be a reflection of them.  Policies to address these will not likely be effective.  They should just address them naturally.

 

The 'forced' diversity through rotational agreements and designated 'slotting' of various gender and ethnic groups remains one of the more troubling practices of the organization.  It's not that we don't get good people (because we do), but the process should be more open and equitable and we should not be practicing 'quota systems' for the sake of political correctness.

 

I am concerned about the diversity of representation on the board and how it may be affected when regions are acting in isolation, but overall I think regional selection is a better approach.

 

I remain concerned about diversity, but I think we should try this approach.  My concern is the leadership would become a bunch of old white guys...not that these guys are bad...but they are not very diverse. 

 

I strongly believe that state associations are the biggest impediment to diversity among the ICMA Executive Board.  If you look at the state wide leadership, it comes predominantly from one demographic - older, white males.  Where issues have arisen between the state associations and ICMA Exec Board it can be traced back to the nominating committee choosing a different demographic of the Executive Board.

 

Although closer involvement of the state associations in the regional VP the election process would strengthen the ties between the state associations and ICMA I sincerely doubt it would accomplish representational goals.  The current ICMA Nominating Committee  should be retained in some hybrid arrangement if those goals are to be met.

 

The diversity issue would be the big concern.  The prior notice idea noted above may alleviate that concern, just not sure.

 

I believe that the proposal would provide a more unified structure    but would result in a less diverse board since the people would represent the homogenous viewpoints of parochial state associations.

 

In our geographic area, the top positions in local government management are predominantly held by (1) men and (2) middle-aged, and (3) usually caucasian, I doubt that involving the state level organization in the nominating process will result in a higher degree of diversity - geographic diversity perhaps, but not demographic diversity

 

This will not improve diversity among assistants and minority groups because the State organizations are not all fairly represented of ICMA members and, regions have rotations that put limits on the nomination process.

 

Support

 The governance proposal related to nominations would preserve the state association preferences during the nomination process.

 

Would give a greater opportunity for input in the election process and representation.

 

This approach seems to have worked well for us in the Midwest for several years now.  It would be very important for ICMA to strongly emphasize the diversity goals, however.  Otherwise this system runs the risk of turning into a 'good old boys (and girls?)' network.  I don't understand the idea of having the ICMA President or designee serving on every regional nominating committee.  I think this would be perceived as compromising the independence of the regionally based process. 

 

This does need to be fixed, it seems so haphazard now.

 

About time for this kind of change.  Concern might be how president can attend all these different meetings.

 

It would also allow input from the members as they would know the nomination committee members and wouldn't feel shut out.

This would seem to work.

 

I live in the southeast and think their process works very well, and has produced strong leaders.

 

I am more likely to personally know people in my region and trust   the state associations to find the capable and able leaders we need.

 

For years, this has been a conflict point. Glad to see we are dealing with it.  The Midwest system worked well.

Some members have long-advocated this.

 

Advisory Body

Role of the State President should be advisory to ICMA; this would make a closer tie and avoid 'in and out groups' with ICMA director and staff. Why no comment spot on that one?

   

Well managed ad hoc groups can offer the same benefits with less organizational costs.

 

Potentially this could be a large and cumbersome body dependent on the affiliate agreements in place. Its role would have to be clearly defined so as not to create an added layer. But it does provide a stronger link with the State associations other than the regional VPs who come to one meeting per year and can't understand the import of some of the state's issues.

 

You do not need to have a travel site of this group but could use web for the purpose.

 

This looks like hand picked representatives versus duly elected representatives.  Outreach activities and providing support for people to get involved would be a better approach than this type of committee. This is just another layer of bureaucracy and it could have the reverse effect of greater involvement.

 

I like the Advisory Board concept the most because it would allow for a larger conversation that is very representative of local governments across the country by allowing the state association  to appoint someone they feel best represents the interests of our particular state.

 

This would probably work. It kind of gives me tired head, because we focus so much energy on ICMA governance.  I am pretty happy with the way it is structured now and I don't think we have to create something equivalent to the House of Representatives to run this thing.  I have never been an ICMA board member and I am OK with that.  If I had something to say, someone would always listen.