@AppDefects wrote:
Quality variables for prospective petitioners are not considered. I have more faith in the selection Committee in executing on a mature process that vets prospective candidates.
That is why my earlier comments called out the need to include both slate and petition candidates in a voter's guide and also to consider additionally endorsing petition candidates using the Board's same process. Since the ultimate decision comes from the members, giving members the tools to evaluate "quality", using their own metrics is how we cultivate that faith.
I have comfort in knowing that the number of candidates going onto the slate grew their leadership skills through Chapters. I have less and less empathy for petitioners trying to subvert the process in a power grab.
Building comfort is the entire purpose behind election rules and voter education. Education is what turns accusations of patronage [cite] into faith in the system. Candidate profiles are how you can measure if candidates have the pedigree you desire and if you find their motivations true.
I believe that the petition process was put in place because selection was rife with problems but that time has gone
Problems that are gone today can always return tomorrow. The bylaws delegate the selection process to the Board, making it possible for a future board to throw out the process and go fully cronyism. A mechanism for "the people" to forcefully replace the board through the petition process is the final safety-valve to counteract a rogue board. Given that a disloyal board will not take steps that results in its loss of control, it is important that safety valves be both preexisting and untouchable by the board.
On a more positive note, petitions can also be a very effective way to correct unconscious bias on the board and to help find that talented "new blood" that every organization so desperately needs.
