As a matter of fact, VP's do not set policy! Only the board sets policy. The
job descriptions of the VP's limit them to implementing the policies of the
Also, I happen to agree that the Exec Director should not be elected for all the
reasons you mentioned. My point was to extend the point that Roger was making
that we should even put the question of committee chairmen on the table.....
and I am jsut going all the way to include the exec director. Not more not
Atkins, Joel wrote:
> As a lowly student, I don't have much insight to offer. However, I think
> that there is a vital difference between the executive director and vice
> presidents. The executive director is an administrative position which does
> not set policy. Each of the VP's does set policy.
> It would be nice before the election, if the prospective VP's would offer
> some insight into their positions and views, as they relate to the office
> which they are seeking. At that point the fellows could vote for the
> officer sharing their views and goals. This would give the CAS officers who
> share a vision with the majority of the members.
> Under the current system, four directors are elected each year, and these
> twelve individuals appoint other individuals based on their perceptions of
> what is best for the CAS. It can be argued that the board is more familiar
> with the issues, but it adds an extra layer between the membership and those
> officers who set policy.
> It should be noted that electing VP's would encourage more debate on issues,
> and less reliance on the big issues when you vote for directors.
> Joel Atkins
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: C. K. Khury [SMTP:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 1999 12:27 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Cc: John.Purple@po.state.ct.us; email@example.com
> > Subject: Re: CAS Election Process
> > Roger.
> > You want discussion.... and that is what you will get.
> > I read your notes with intetest. I understand all of your observations
> > and what you would like to see happen with putting up most of the
> > positions of responsibility for election.
> > So, to kick off the discussion, I temporarily will assume your position
> > that everyone who is elected is really not elected but
> > appointed/annointed, and would like to ask you, what is it that is broken
> > that you would like to see fixed? Is the condition we assume, that some
> > people are appointed/annointed, a prpoblem by itself? Are the
> > appointed/annointed people
> > doing a bad job when a better job could be done by elected people? Are
> > some deserving people getting overlooked by this appointment/annointment
> > process? Or is it something else. I think it would help this discussion
> > if you would identify the problems (or the consequences of the problems)
> > you see with the current set up.....
> > Regards
> > Stan.
> > PS. While we are at it, would you want the executive director position up
> > for election? And if not, why not?
> > Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
> > ===============================================
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
> > Send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
> > or leave casnet to unsubscribe.
Visit the CAS Web Site at http://www.casact.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe from CASNET:
Send an e-mail to email@example.com
Type in the body join casnet to subscribe
or leave casnet to unsubscribe.