Memo from the Leadership Development Committee
DATE:     July 13, 2018
 

TO:          MIC3 Commissioners and Designees
 
FROM:    The Ad Hoc Leadership Development Committee (LDC):
                Laura Anastasio, CT Commissioner
                Sarah Forster, MA Commissioner
                Kate Wren Gavlak, CA Commissioner and Committee Chair
                Gary Hartman, WY Commissioner
                Marcy Herman, AK Commissioner
                Craig Neuenswander, KS Commissioner
                Cheryl Serrano, CO Commissioner
 
RE:          Questions Regarding the LDC and the Process on the Commission Elections and Succession 
 
The members of the Ad Hoc Leadership Development Committee, with General Counsel Rick Masters, have drafted the following responses to address the concerns expressed by Tennessee Commissioner, Deanna McLaughlin, regarding the committee’s work and validity of proposed process with regard to the Commission’s Rules and By-laws in her emailed communication, dated Sunday, June 17, 2018 6:55 PM ET, to the members of the National Commission.  

Should you have additional questions regarding our committee, feel free to contact us directly.
 
Question #1: Why not propose an amendment to the By-laws at (the) ABM (Annual Business Meeting) where the full membership can discuss and debate the idea of two-year terms?

Because the provision concerning elections originates in Art. XI, B. of the MIC3 statute which provides for annual elections.  Thus, the LDC proposal is only a recommendation based upon past practice which is not required by the statute and cannot therefore be required by the MIC3 By-laws. Before we can amend the By-laws, each state that adopted the MIC3 standard, model language would have to amend their state statute, which is not practical.

Question #2: Why not propose an amendment to the By-laws at ABM for the addition of a process for commissioners or designees to be part of a slate of nominees for the officer positions?

Article VI, Section 4 of the MIC3 By-laws provides that matters of parliamentary procedure not covered by these By-laws shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order.  Robert’s Rules of Order 66 states that in the election of officers, the “usual practice” is to have a committee make the nominations.  These may then be made from the floor.  The committee’s nominations are treated just as if made by members from the floor.” Since the By-laws already provide that Robert’s Rules are the ‘default procedure’ to be followed in the absence of By-laws the “usual practice” as provided in Robert’s Rules was selected.       

Question #3: Did all members of the LDC review and approve this process/procedure?  

Yes, all of the LDC members participated in the meetings and discussion. We drafted, reviewed, and approved the process and documents as reflected in the meeting minutes posted on the MIC3 webpage:


Note: The meeting minutes were captured by the national office with the exception of October 26, 2017 held at the Fall Annual Business Meeting, which was drafted by former LDC Committee member, Commissioner Shelley Joan Weiss (WI). 

Question #4: Did (MIC3 General Counsel) Rick Masters review and approve this process/procedure?

Yes, as MIC3 General Counsel, Rick Masters was a member of the LDC and actively participated in meetings. He reviewed the proposed procedure, documents, and determined that the Committee was authorized by the above provisions of Robert’s Rules and the Compact statute.

Question #5: When was the LDC formed? The email that we received this past Wednesday has conflicting information. 

According to the meeting minutes of July 18, 2016, the Executive Committee (EXCOM) approved and established the LDC as a nominating committee, determined the composition, and the following goals: 
1)   identifying commissioners interested in leadership positions
2)   develop a clear and transparent election and succession process that supports organization continuity.

The Executive Committee meeting minutes of September 21, 2017, reflect the desire to develop an election process that is simpler, transparent, and easier to understand. Therefore, the EXCOM revised the LDC member composition and additional persons were appointed. 

Minutes of the Executive Committee, July 18, 2016, Item 8, #32-34: 
 
"32.  Succession Plan – (National) Chair Gavlak brought the proposal of a nominating committee and the development of a succession plan to the attention of the (EXCOM) Committee.  The (EXCOM) Committee decided that the establishment of a new Nomination Committee should be formalized.  The nominating committee should be composed of
  • The immediate Past Commission Chair
  • The current Commission Chair
  • The MIC3 Executive Director
  • 1 At-Large Member (selected by the leadership pool w/1-year term)

33.       The new nominating committee and the process will be introduced at the 2016 MIC3 Annual Meeting.  In addition, the Executive Committee decided that other leadership opportunities for Commissioners should be developed.  These would include breakout facilitators, speaker or presenter opportunities, etc.
 
34.       The Executive Committee requested that the staff create and distribute a form for Commissioners to fill out if they are interested in a leadership position. The form could be turned in to the Executive Director or the Commission Chair."

Minutes of the Executive Committee, September 21, 2017, Item 4, #16: 

“Leadership Development Committee (LDC)  – Commissioner Wren Gavlak (CA) said that after much thought and criticism of the election process, she is trying to develop an election process that is simpler, transparent, and easier to understand. Individuals may be critical of the election process and EXCOM because they may not be aware of the roles and/or responsibilities of the leadership positions or the time requirements involved. She added that it does takes a lot of time to serve on the EXCOM. Prior, Wren Gavlak asked Chair Kraeger to appoint an Ad Hoc Committee (that would not include anyone currently on EXCOM) to review current materials, discuss the process/concerns, and educate the Commission what being on the EXCOM requires. They would discuss developing an application process (currently the LDC receives a list of names to select from). While we won’t be able to get rid of all the criticism, when we leave Rhode Island, she hopes that a good discussion and a tight process for succession planning (with training) will be developed as a result. (Kathy) Facon added that she supported this effort.”

Question #6: In all of the information included in this email nowhere does it explain how the slate of officers is selected. It also doesn't state that a list of the persons who submitted their name or were nominated by another commissioner or designee will be published for transparency.

See above response to question #2. 
LDC Election Process and Documents: