President's Perspective
Dave Brown AMA president
The problem with a majority rule is simply cost—in terms of both money and time.
The election is over and I am still writing this column, so I guess that should give you an idea of the outcome. I want to take this opportunity to thank those who voted—regardless of whether they voted for me or one of the others who campaigned for the position of AMA president.
The results of the election have stirred some initiative to change the election system, because in one case a vice president won re-election with less than a majority of the votes cast. He won on the basis of a plurality, which means he received more votes than either of his opponents.
This is how AMA’s current rules determine the winner. There is a feeling among some that a person elected to office should receive a clear majority of the votes cast. This generally happens with the system we have, as it did in my case, but sometimes we have a winner on the basis of a plurality.
Several years ago we did require a majority, and this was essentially an automatic result when we allowed only two people on the ballot, although write-in votes could prevent this. When we revised the process to allow three people on the ballot, we changed to the plurality rule.
The problem with a majority rule is simply cost—in terms of both money and time. If we allow more than two candidates to run for any AMA office, this problem will be of concern.
The alternatives include having a two-stage election process, where the field is narrowed to two candidates in the first stage (assuming there are more than two to begin with), and then holding a runoff election. This is not really a problem, but it would require that we start the process earlier to allow for the runoff election, and it would also involve a significant cost.
To put this into perspective, it could cost more than $100,000 if it involved a national office. As in most situations, this one has many different aspects, and a resolution isn’t as easy as some would think.
I wonder when I hear those who believe my election to the position of president is acceptable because I received a majority of the votes cast, but who say the fact that he won without receiving a majority of the votes taints the election of Jim McNeill. I can’t see where that makes much difference in an election process where approximately 16% of the people eligible to vote actually did! My clear majority is the result of roughly 9.6% of the entire membership voting for me!
I’m not convinced that changing the system is the answer to this dilemma. I am convinced that we need to do more to encourage a greater number of AMA members to take part in the process.
We have tried postage-paid ballots at a significant expense to AMA, and it has had little effect. Based on the percentage of members voting, perhaps it is time to look at other ideas.
If we were to make the ballot an actual part of the renewal form and perhaps offset the officer term to March, it might encourage more people to vote; however, it would deny those who don’t renew in time of their right to vote, and we would lose the anonymity of the ballot, as it would be obvious who any individual member voted for.
Could we involve clubs in the process? It would even be possible to have the clubs elect the officers, but that would be a difficult process and subject to problems.
I wish I knew of a process that would work better than what we currently have, but I don’t. Each system has its faults—just ask anyone about our national presidential election last year—and it’s just a matter of which fault becomes prominent in any particular election.
The Executive Council recently passed a motion that will require all clubs to submit bylaws to AMA as a part of the chartering process. This will be required of all new clubs in 2002, and of all clubs in 2003.
The reason we allowed renewing clubs more time to comply is that we have found that some existing clubs do not have any bylaws. This situation can create many problems.
Believe me, AMA has no interest in “running” your club, but if we are to provide insurance coverage for your club, it is important that we ensure that it has some basic documents necessary to defend the club in a dispute or lawsuit.
Recent problems have pointed out that the absence of basic elements in bylaws, or even the outright lack of bylaws, can really complicate the process of settling a dispute or a lawsuit filed against a club. The absence of proper bylaws increases the cost of presenting a defense, and that is a concern to AMA, which is paying those costs.
While you are confirming that your club has bylaws, please ensure that it is following them. Pay particular attention to the processes of disciplining or expelling a member. Those areas can be a slippery slope.
Dave Brown AMA president [email protected]
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
