Go to:
Online Doc
Peter Hepburn's picture

sharing write in vote names

A recommendation mentioned in an e-mail to the Committee:  that the names of those listed as write in votes be shared with nominating committees or persons in the relevant ALA bodies
in order to facilitate the search for suitable candidates in subsequent

Mary Ghikas (staff)'s picture

There is some relevant discussion you might want to follow in the member community "Social Media Mavens." 

William McHugh's picture

I don't know that I have much to add to these topics from what we said Friday morning, but, yes, I'm in favor of sharing write-in names with nominating committees.   Obviously not all the write-ins were serious, but a number were, and there are never too many ideas about good people to nominate. Also it would certainly make sense to have names of winning write-in candidates vetted before the committee meets, although it's not that time-consuming, either, for staff to do it on the spot. Increasing voter participation is thornier, and it might make sense for us to brainstorm face-to-face with Membership, if we can manage to get that many people together at conference!   The discussion on the topic under "Social Media Mavens" was interesting, and, as Mary Ghikas noted, there is a fine line between letting people know about the election and hounding them.   One complaint that resonated with me was the difficulty of comparing candidate information in instances where there are many candidates, such as for council.   Apparently there was a way of printing off or simultaneously viewing all the candidate bios, but maybe this could be made more obvious.  One the other hand, participation in section races where choices are limited is not what it could be, either.  I do think that, given the size of the organization and the varying levels of involvement, there may be limits to what we can do, but it certainly would be good to explore the possibilities.  My 2-cents. Bill McHugh