At next week's SPJ convention, chapter delegates will elect 12 new national board members. In 11 of those races, the voting will resemble the Soviet Union more than a professional society.Only the race for student representative is contested, and no one seems surprised by that. Which surprises me.
When I've asked SPJers who've been around a lot longer than I have, they tell me uncontested races always outnumber the contested ones. But a nearly full slate of no contests? Apparently, even that's not unusual.
That's frightening for a number of reasons...
1. It's self-perpetuating. How are we supposed to convince local members to become nationally active if only one person ever wants a board post? To talented SPJers, that signals, "Our board must be boring, because so few want to serve on it." So they sit out. To lazy SPJers, it signals, "Hey, I don't want to work very hard for an extra resume line, so this might be easy." Alas, if these folks get on the board, they'll work no harder than they did on their campaign.
2. It's class-creating. Suddenly, it makes sense why the Executive Committee renders so many decisions without asking around first — because so few of them ever had to talk to the rank-and-file while climbing the chain of command. Last year, Kevin Smith beat Ron Sylvester for president-elect. Before the convention, I called both men on behalf of my chapter. Ron and Kevin were wonderfully articulate about their visions for SPJ. When I apologized for taking up so much of their time, both said they'd already been grilled by other chapters. (Chicago, God bless ’em, is apparently the toughest interview.) To this day, I have respect for both the winner and the loser in that race.
3. It's buzz-killing. Imagine if last year, only Kevin Smith had run. Our chapter wouldn't have had any reason to call him. Nor would any others (although maybe Chicago would've, just to give him hell). We'd never get to know the man. And the convention's business session would've been anticlimactic — as I expect this one will be. And only Kevin can answer this question: Did you learn something from a contested race that you wouldn't have learned from a cakewalk?
So what can be done?
First, let's look at what happens now. SPJ's past president is chairman of a nominating committee — although I've never heard of anyone else serving on it, so it might be a committee of one.
Obviously, this isn't working. Here's an opinion from someone much smarter than me...
"Most board performance problems can often be traced to the casual or haphazard way that some organizations go about recruiting, selecting and orienting board directors. In many organizations, board recruitment and nominations activities are really ad hoc in nature."
Sounds like us.
"A key problem is the traditional nominating committee. In many organizations, if there even is a formal nominating committee, it typically does little real recruiting work. Instead, the nominating committee often relies on whomever is available from a relatively closed 'circle of friends and supporters' already known to the organization or the committee members."
That's from Create the Future, a website collaboration between two consulting firms that specialize in nonprofits. It suggests a handful of changes, beginning with, "Establish a year-round committee," and ending with, "Develop a written board director job description." (Read all the ideas here.)
I hear SPJ has job descriptions for board members — but apparently, no one's sure where they are. I certainly wasn't given any when I decided to run. Nor was I given any links to a Candidate's Handbook or anything that would explain what was expected of me.
If you doubt the website I cited, here's another from nonprofit consultant, this one more blunt than the others: "One of the best pieces of advice for any nonprofit organization is to get rid of your Nominating Committee." Read the details here. Especially the part about actively recruiting board members.
Finally, consider this: SPJ has many wonderful chapter presidents, national committee chairmen, and regional directors. Yet none of them are running for the top two spots, which are president-elect or treasurer. Is that a reflection on them? Or us?
WEDNESDAY: Negative nitpicking?
