Suggestion for future nominating committees....

Well, last night's general meeting was certainly dramatic.

My concern is that this sort of thing might prove divisive in the club. Based on a turnout of about double the usual number of people for a general meeting, it's a safe guess that there was a lot of behind the scenes politicking afoot. I received a phone call on Wednesday afternoon, urging me to support the candidate put forward by the nominating committee. The caller assured me that the nominating committee had looked at dozens of potential choices for the position, and after long deliberation had determined the member they nominated was uniquely and supremely qualified to serve as a trustee. I thought the phone call was awkward. I was being asked to support a member with whom I have not been privileged to become acquainted and personally knew nothing about (and who may indeed have been a stellar candidate for the office), based primarily on an assurance of "trust us, he's the best or we wouldn't have nominated him".

I'm sure that serving on the nominating committee is a difficult, sometimes thankless task. Our flag officers make a huge commitment of several years' duration to go through the chairs, and it can't always be easy to find people both qualified and willing to accept that challenge. Most of the time, the choices made by the nominating committee are approved without dissent from the general membership. I am absolutely 100% certain that the nominating committee sincerely felt the candidate they advanced was the best choice and that the nomination was made with the club's best interests in mind. That's a given. Hats off to the nominating committee for the hours spent interviewing, discusssing, and deliberating.

However, in cases like this election to an interim position on the board (where the nominating committee reported they were sifting through a slate of "about 40" possible candidates), it might be good practice for the nominating committee to put forward their "top two" choices. The membership could pick between them, plus anyone nominated from the floor as per the bylaws. If (in those cases where there is more than one viable candidate available) the nominating committee allowed us to choose between two members named by the committee it would then seem less like the nominating committee were somehow "picking" the officers and trustees vs. the members electing them. 

Nobody likes to lose an election, but it has to be especially tough on a losing candidate facing what almost seemed like a revolt among the general members. If there were two or more candidates for most offices, coming in second wouldn't carry the same stigma associated with being a candidate in a process that is only rarely contested.