Composing competing slates of fully qualified boards would be a waste of precious resources. Fully democratic elections would tend to turn into popularity or celebrity (name recognition) contests and would probably result in boards with significant gaps in competencies.

What the association needs is a very conscious effort to develop leadership potential and ensure a vibrant talent pool from which the Nominating Committee can construct an optimal group every year. As a community, we need to make a concerted effort to fill our gaps. Efforts are being made in this direction. Most regions now have their own Leadership Institutes but also try to send people to the international edition. The Nominating Committee contacts a broad field of people to encourage them to apply for leadership positions.

But there is a lot more that could be done:

1) More transparency on what the different working groups are, who runs them, what they cover, how to get involved and the return on time invested.

2) A greater link between materials and speakers at the different Leadership Institutes (we need to eliminate the we-us mentality about which content is IABC’s.

3) Greater use of tools that allow people to work at a convenient time for their time zone. Conference calls can be really useful, but they are a challenge in a truly global organization. When the International Growth Grants Committee looked at this year’s applications, we had precisely two times of day when we could have the call (the Pacific night being our constraint), and it was 7 in the morning for one person and about midnight for another.

It’s a valid question, Tom.

Thanks for your reply… I get what you are saying–that you think advocacy is essentially one distinct part of the IABC agenda.

At the same time, I believe that the lack of a democratic electoral process that allows members to genuinely set the Association’s advocacy agenda is fair game.

Without such a process, the “consensus” that emerges will lead at best to watered-down changes, or a continuation of the status quo where IABC focuses on institutional stability instead of focusing its resources on leading the communications industries, channelling communicators to make a difference in our communities and the world, or generating explosive membership growth.

If IABC is to emerge as a credible advocate, it needs to embed advocacy–and democracy–deeply into its culture, and provide those who support advocacy agendas within the Association with a platform for transforming their advocacy into real world impact.

I can see no higher purpose for The Advocacy Initiative.

Your suggestion to begin a conversation regarding changing IABC bylaws to alter the process for selecting its leaders is worth discussing–but I would separate it from this advocacy initiative.

While I agree that candidates for IABC leadership positions should be able to articulate and defend their views on matters affecting the association, advocacy is one of many such potential positions.

I could see your suggested conversation taking place on the IABC Cafe, within the IABC member group of MyRagan, or on our individual blogs. I’d like this Advocacy Commons blog to remain focused on moving that initiative forward–in whatever directions it is meant to go.