Article 6. Executive Board
6.1. Overview
The Executive Board is charged with responsibility for:
(a) administration of the Society’s general operations
(b) administration of the Society’s membership affairs
(c) administration of the Society’s financial affairs
(d) formulation and revision of policies, rules, plans and strategies
(e) decisions on issues arising as Society business
(f) recording and reporting its proceedings, decisions, and actions as prescribed herein
These are hereafter referred to as the Executive Board’s ‘core responsibilities’.
6.2. Members of the Executive Board (Officers)
The Executive Board shall consist of officers whom the Society’s members have (a) selected via formal election or (b) ratified as necessary in accordance with special procedures described herein. All Executive Board officers thus approved by the membership shall have voting privileges in Executive Board proceedings. ‘Titled functionaries’ (cf. Article 3) and Committee chairs (cf. Article 8) appointed by the Executive Board are not ‘officers’ as defined for the provisions of this Article.
The Executive Board shall consist of officers whose position specifications address the Board’s core responsibilities listed above. At a minimum, the Board shall consist of the President as chairman, the President-Elect (during the period between election and taking office), the immediate Past President, the Vice-President, the Secretary, and the Treasurer. These officer positions are hereafter referred to as the Executive Board’s ‘core offices’.
The Executive Board may augment its core offices by including additional Vice Presidents or other titled positions charged with special areas of responsibility. For example, there may be a Vice President for Membership designated to manage the core responsibility of membership affairs if responsibility for those affairs is not assigned to a core officer. Such additional officer positions are hereafter referred to as the Executive Board’s ‘augmented offices’. Such augmented offices are subject to the same provisions as core offices with respect to nomination, election, and term of office.
The Executive Board is empowered to enumerate and organize the duties and responsibilities of any constituent officer other than those specifically prescribed herein, subject to the requirement that its core responsibilities be executed. Specifications for any additional duties and responsibilities assigned to the President, as well as all duties and responsibilities assigned each of the other officer positions, shall be documented and made accessible to the Society’s membership and the Trustees.
6.3. Operation of the Executive Board
The President shall be responsible for implementing and enforcing the policies formulated by the Executive Board, presiding as chairman at Executive Board meetings and at General Business Meetings, and representing the Society before the public.
The Executive Board shall formulate the policies of the Society and assist the President in implementing and enforcing these policies. In its deliberations, the Executive Board shall rely on the Committees of the Society and may request guidance from the Ombudspersons and from the Trustees. The Executive Board may set its own criteria for determining decisions, so long as said criteria entail the consent or consensus of a majority of the Board’s voting members.
The Executive Board shall hold regular meetings at least once each year and distribute its minutes to the Trustees and the Ombudspersons within two weeks after the minutes are reviewed and approved. These minutes will be made available to the membership within three months after review and approval.
The Executive Board shall arrange for the election of officers, the voting on proposed revisions of or additions to these by-laws, and the polling of members on particular issues to determine consensus or to override a veto by the Trustees.
6.4. Election and Term of Office for Executive Board Members
All members of the Executive Board shall be elected or otherwise approved as prescribed herein (cf. Article 9) from among the voting members of the Society for a three year term.
Routine changes of office every three years shall be staggered with the President-Elect and other elected officers to be chosen no later than 6 months before the current President’s term of office expires. The President-Elect and other officers-elect shall take office when the sitting President’s designated term of office expires.
The immediate Past President shall occupy that position by virtue of being the most recent sitting President succeeded by the current President. Under normal circumstances (officers serving their full terms) the immediate Past President shall be accorded that position until his / her second successor as President takes office, at which time his / her first successor becomes immediate Past President. In the event the first successor vacates the Presidency prematurely (for example, by resignation) the Executive Board shall decide whether the current immediate Past President or the first successor should henceforth occupy the position of immediate Past President. In the event a sitting immediate Past President vacates that position, the position will remain vacant until the next Presidential succession.
Under normal circumstances, no individual may continuously occupy the same Executive Board core office for more than two consecutive full three-year terms. In the event a sitting core officer entered into that office within the prescribed term (e.g., as a replacement via special election), the resultant partial term shall not be included in enumerating that individual’s terms of continuous service for the purposes of this term limit.
In the event there is reason or desire for a core officer to stand for election to a term exceeding the stated limit, that officer’s name may be added to the ballot as follows:
(a) the Nominations Committee may include the sitting officer on the slate of candidates reported to the Executive Board and cite the rationale for doing so
(b) the Executive Board may vote to include that officer on the ballot in addition to any other nominees received from the Nominations Committee.
Regardless of such an extraordinary nomination’s source, the Executive Board shall notify the Trustees and afford them their designated veto period before the given officer’s name may be included on the ballot distributed to the voting members.
An individual may continuously occupy the same Executive Board augmented office for so long as he / she is nominated and elected (or otherwise approved) as prescribed herein.
6.5. Offices and Officers: Specification and Special Circumstances
The Executive Board may not dissolve any of the Society’s prescribed core offices or establish new prescribed core offices on its own motion.
Subject to (a) the consensus, reporting, election and accountability requirements prescribed herein and (b) the requirement that it ensure capability for execution of its core responsibilities, the Executive Board may:
- add or dissolve augmented office(s)
- revise the specifications for any officer’s duties and responsibilities other than those specifically prescribed herein.
In the event of vacancy in an Executive Board office other than the President, the Executive Board may on its own motion fill or mitigate the vacancy by exchange, adoption, or transfer of either offices or responsibilities among the current sitting officers and any officers-elect awaiting installation. Any such actions are subject to the Board’s voted consensus and the reporting and accountability requirements prescribed herein.
In the event the President’s position becomes vacant, the sitting Vice President shall become the President pro tem pending either (a) a special election to fill the vacancy or (b) the scheduled entrance of an extant President-Elect into the office. In the event such pro tem succession is not possible the Trustees may appoint a President pro tem pending the special election.
During those occasional periods when a President-Elect has been chosen but has not yet taken office, the sitting Vice-President may defer pro tem succession in favor of the President-Elect’s taking office early.
If a vacancy cannot be filled or accommodated from within the current set of elected officers as described above, the Executive Board shall initiate action leading to a special election or process of ratification by the membership. Such action shall proceed in accordance with the electoral protocol outlined in Article 9.
If deemed necessary, the Board may optionally appoint a qualified interim officeholder for any position other than President to execute the vacant office’s mission pending final election / ratification in accordance with Article 9.
Article 6 has been extensively revised to add clarifications and make provisions which have proven to be necessary in resolving problematical situations that have arisen in recent years. The essential prescriptions for the duties and responsibilities of the Executive Board are unchanged from the 1979 by-laws.
The revisions’ effects include the following:
- specifying the Exec’s operational responsibilities
- clarifying who is a voting member of the Exec
- specifying the possibility and means for implementation for ‘augmented offices’ in addition to the legally prescribed ‘core offices’
- specifying the Exec’s responsibilities with regard to voting processes (elections, etc.)
- removing the absolute 2-term term limit for elected officers (which has made it difficult to keep ASC offices filled in recent years)
- specification of safeguards (nomination / election) for officers amenable to serving more than 2 terms
- specification for how term limit provisions are to be calculated
- clarification / specification of the provisions for the Past President’s tenure
- allowance for trustees’ review / veto of extraordinary nominations
- prohibiting the Exec from dissolving or ignoring the mandatory ‘core offices’
- allowance for temporarily accommodating vacancies (other than the President) by means other than election, subject to standing reporting / accountability rules
- specification of the procedure for presidential succession in the event of a vacancy
- specification of a requirement for special elections to fill vacancies not otherwise capable of resolution
- allowance for appointment of temporary interim officeholders to assure continuity in society operations
In the October 4th blurb entitled ASC By-Laws Revision, the last sentence of the eighth paragraph sumarizing the thinking behind revised Article 6 reads as follows: “The District of Columbia corporate regulations require a 3-year term of office.”
If it suits us and pleases us we can specify three year terms of office. But we are NOT being coerced to do so. For example, the mandatory District of Columbia Bar has one-year terms for its lawyer members; one can’t have a license to practice if one is not a Bar member. I say this as a member of the District of Columbia Bar in good standing.
The three-year time span suggested arises from the fact that a DC-chartered nonprofit membership corporation such as the American Society for Cybernetics need not submit a fresh list of officers and directors every year, but only every three years. We pay the filing fee just every three years as well. This is a matter of DC bureaucratic convenience and a beneficial charitable concession.
As a corporation our by-laws can say anything we might dream up about internal corporate organization and governance — so long as such provisions are not inconsistent with DC law.
Ern:
There was a proposal early in the by-laws revision process to extend the currently-prescribed term of office from 3 to 4 years so as to slow down the electoral cycle (and hence the rate at which the society was running out of candidates for its offices). After much discussion, the consensus began to tilt toward keeping the existing 3-year term of office specification.
The deciding factor in reverting to the current 3-year term was the governing District of Columbia corporations statute (DC ST § 29-301.24), which states:
“The officers of a corporation shall consist of a president, a secretary, and a treasurer, and may include 1 or more vice-presidents and such other officers and assistant officers as may be deemed necessary, each of whom shall be elected or appointed at such time and in such manner and for such terms ***not exceeding 3 years*** as may be prescribed in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws.”
… So the 3-year term is an actual legal prescription (at least as far as the maximum term of office is concerned).
ern,
you are close to the DC regulations and can help clarifying the requirements.
i’d say, why on earth do we need a new article 12 and a new entity that does precisely what the trustees are to do, namely ovwerseeing that the society operates legally and withing its by-laws. from what i understand, there are several synomyms for “board of directors.” our university has trustees,
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors
wouldn’t it the best solutions to add a sentence to the trustee article saying that the trustees serve as the board of directors of the society?
please correct me if i am wrong, in view of the different names available for naming the entity with the oversight function, the board of directors’ problem is not a problem at all.
in my reading, article 12 creates a by-law conflict by establishing a second entity that has essentially the same oversight responsibility as the trustees, only a different name. who shall have the last word? and who can act to fulfill the oversight function?
there are two additional conflicts, one already present in the existing bylaws, namely (1) that the trustees may participate in the meetings of the executive board and its committees. besides the havoc this creates if 12 trustees were to show up in the small executive board, i think the supervisory and executive functions should be kept separate with the executive reporting to the trustees and the trustees not voting in executive decision. (2) with the exception of including the chair of the trustees in the new board of directors, the other two members are to be supervised by the very board of which they now are a part. this seems again confounding accoutability. please give us your legal opinion on that.
besides all of this, we are such a small society. we don’t need a proliferation of by-law articles and officers. although the board of directors, as conceived, doesn’t involve more people in official roles, which i appreciate, the proportion of office holders to the number of members has increased, perhaps unreasonably so.
We need an Article 12 owing to a blatant omission and a clear legal deficiency in the 1979 by-laws.
At the time of the 1979 by-laws’ ratification, the ASC had a sitting Board of Directors. Nowhere in the 1979 by-laws is this board acknowledged, and nowhere in the 1979 by-laws does there appear any specification for their being transformed into the Trustees or any other organ of the society.
The existence of a named Board of Directors is - and has always been - a mandatory provision of the DC corporate regulations governing ASC’s corporate status (which predates the 1979 by-laws). In the utter absence of any 1979 by-laws provision citing the board and / or explaining what’s to become of the board, this provision requires a body nowhere addressed in the 1979 documentation.
This is a legal requirement, not a theoretical gloss. It doesn’t disappear just because of unstated intentions or claims of equivalence with those societal bodies actually cited.
Multiple approaches to clarifying / resolving this issue have been suggested during the last 8 months. One of these was indeed adding a provision to name the extant Trustees organ as the required Board of Directors. In the end consensus settled on specifying the missing Board of Directors as a body comprised of the President, Chair of Trustees, and the Immediate Past President on an ex officio basis.
The listing of officer posts strikes me a a bit vague — particularly for the specialty Vice President “augmented officers”. What is each officer’s portfolio?
For example, the Vice President for Membership was propsed and voted (at the annual meeting held at The George Washington University Mount Vernon Campus) to handle any instance when one of our members UNaffiliated with a university and working as an “independent scholar” could count upon ASC oversight, supervision and comptrollership of any grant the individual obtained. No overseer, no grant. Most grantmakers require that any disbursement go directly to a Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization liske the ASC, not straight to an individual grantee. This could be a very important membership benefit.
The distinction between ‘core’ and ‘augmented’ offices / officers was introduced to more clearly delimit the latter - i.e., the set of optional elected / voting members of the Executive Board above and beyond those prescribed by the by-laws and the relevant corporate regulations (i.e., President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer).
There are two examples of such ‘augmented’ positions from the last decade - both of which are currently operative:
(1) VP for Membership - a position created to address membership functions (contacts; renewals; member record keeping) previously handled by the Secretary.
(2) VP for Electronic Publications - a position created to oversee online society resources such as the website.
what you describe as the responsibility of the VP for membership are the prescribed responsibilities of the membership committee, a standing committee. i guess that it is not impossible to have a committee of one.
another current example is the VP for archives, who chairs a committee, is appointed by the executive board as all VPs with special functions should be, but has no vote on that board. i think the executive board should not be given the power to increase the number of its own voting members. it is charged with getting things done. unfortunately, the existing by-laws are not too clear about how the VPs come to be, which should be addressed at some point by by-law revisions. fixing VPs for special purposes for a three year period and requiring their inclusion in the slates of officers for election, in my opinion restricts the flexibility that an executive board must have to respond to emerging challenges.
The VP for Membership does not have, and has never been accorded, the final decision making responsibility on membership matters which is the sole authority granted that committee in the 1979 by-laws.
The VP-Membership position was created effective with the 2004 election cycle in response to continuous lobbying by the Secretary to split secretary and membership responsibilities into two offices.
The membership responsibilities include member communications, establishing and managing the application / dues processing, and maintaining member records. Tending the ‘mechanics’ of ASC membership functions has evolved from a once-a-year deluge of postal interactions to a continuous stream of inquiries, responses, updates, record keeping, and coordination with other ASC offices and officers.
The ‘mechanics’ of the society require considerable time, effort, diligence, and even expense to execute. With respect to membership, these burdens caused one Secretary to beg for relief and at least one subsequent VP-Membership to head for the hills. We’ve lost multiple Treasurers (another such ‘mechanics’ office) during the last decade - some immediately upon learning of the responsibilities. The third such burdensome ‘mechanics’ office - VP for Electronic Publications - has burned out its inaugural occupant. This last office (VPEP) had to be created to accommodate responsibility for the online resources ASC escalated (and you wish to now make the society’s primary interactional venue) - resources nowhere assigned to any Executive Board office (or, for that matter, the Executive Board in toto) in the 1979 by-laws.
Recent experience has demonstrated the burdens and their negative effects on attracting and keeping those officeholders who must address the ‘mechanics’ of the society. Without them, there would be no functional ASC organization.
Two of these three positions are new VP positions instituted from 2001 onward. The idea of pawning off two of ASC’s three most essential functions to appointed peons accorded continuous obligation and no vote is a recipe for disaster.
It’s already proven difficult enough to find people willing to undertake these labor-intensive offices with voting privileges. The first Secretary and VP-Membership elected after these offices’ split resigned once they were apprised of their responsibilities. The Treasurer’s position has repeatedly gone vacant for embarrassingly long stretches of time.
The revised by-laws address the need for accommodating the demands of actually maintaining the society’s essential functions by three means (all of which have established precedents):
(1) New ‘augmented’ voting VP positions subject to the same electoral provisions as the previously-prescribed officers
(2) Appointed non-voting VP’s existing and serving at the discretion of the Executive Board
(3) ‘Functionaries’ appointed for and accepting specific duties (e.g., newsletter editor) without formal membership on the Executive Board.
I would understand the need of adding a member to the Executive Board concerned with communication, previously undertaken by the Secretary and by the membership committee. That member could well be elected among Voting Members to three year terms, in effect enlarging the Executive Board to 6-7 voting members. I think a case can be made that membership communication is an essential function that the Executive Board needs to address, similar to Treasurer and Secretary.
This would require a by-law change.It would mean shifting the responsibilities of the required membership committee to a executive Board member (to perform the functions of reviewing membership applications, recruiting new members, and communicating with existing ones — an outreach service). I am not sure though whether a single person can or should do this all, but this sis a different conversation.
I don’t believe what you imply that having voting privilege is the only award for members to volunteer their contributions to the Society. Being accepted as an adviser in a specialty should be enough.
The reason for why I would be opposed to make Vice Presidents for special purposes voting members of the Executive Board is: (1) we would have to elect them, (2) to be elected, they have to be nominated for election in three year intervals. (3) an Executive Board that has the idea of introducing a new service and a Vice President to take on this task has to wait until the end of its term to install an elected office, (4) potentially constraining future Executive Boards that may have other ideas, and being stuck with elected and voting member (5) have difficulties to discontinue that office and/or the individuals occupying it. This, (6) introduces stagnation into the by-laws that a small society such as ours can ill afford.
I think the Executive Board should be able to appoint individuals who can handle new services — publications, archives, web presence, conference coordination, even ambassadors to other organizations, whatever — dismiss them when no longer useful and thereby increase the ability of the Society to thrive in the face of continuously new challenges.
To build stagnation into the by-laws spells death to any organization.
I would imagine that for most grants, the overseer would have to have an academic reputation and at least a PhD.
In which case, this places an extra burden on those finding candidates for officer positions.
FOLLOWING UP ON LARRY RICHARDS UNDERSTANDING THAT THE BY-LAW REVISIONS WERE TO FOCUS ON THE SUCCESSION PROBLEM, I PROPOSE THAT PARAGRAPHS 1-2 OF Article 6 IN THE EXISTING BY-LAWS BE REPLACED BY:
The Executive Board shall consist of the President as Chair, the Immediate Past President, the Vice President, the Secretary, the Treasurer, and the President-Elect when elected. These 5-6 members of the Executive Board have one vote each with the President breaking any tie.
All voting members of the Executive Board are elected from the Voting Members of the Society for three year terms. Article 9 specifies the required nomination and election procedures. Presidential elections shall take place at least one year before the term of office of the current Executive Board expires. At presidential elections, the current Vice President shall, if willing, be one of the candidates for the next President. The presidential candidate with the highest vote shall be the President-Elect and assumes this role on the Executive Board immediately after election. The presidential candidate with the second highest vote shall be the Vice President-Elect. The President-Elect shall become President and the Vice President-Elect shall be Vice President when the terms of the current President and Vice President expire.
No individual shall occupy the same elected office for more than two complete consecutive terms, not counting any fractions thereof.
The Executive Board also includes in advisory capacity all Vice Presidents with special responsibilities that this Board deems desirable to appoint (e.g., for publications, for archives) and the Chairs of Standing and Ad Hoc Committees. Their terms shall not exceed the term of the Executive Board that appointed them but are renewable without limit.
Preterminally vacant offices shall be filled as follows: Should the office of the President become vacant, the current Vice President shall assume that office for the remaining term. Should the office of the Immediate Past President become vacant, the most recent of the available past presidents shall assume that office. Should the office of the Vice President become vacant, it shall be assumed either by the President-Elect, if elected, or by the candidate determined in a special election to assume that office for the remaining term. Should the office of the Secretary and/or Treasurer become vacant, either the Vice president or an Executive Board-appointed Voting Member of the Society shall assume their responsibilities – except for voting on the Executive Board – until a special election has filled the vacant office. If such successions are not possible, the Trustees shall appoint the needed officers.
PARAGRAPHS 3-5 OF Article 6 IN THE EXISTING BY-LAWS NEED ONLY MINOR TWEAKING OF LANGUAGE, e.g., “Chair” FOR “chairman,” AND REMOVING “Ombudsmen” SHOULD Article 7 BE VOTED OUT OF THE BY-LAWS.
I CONTEND THAT THE ABOVE PLUS PARAGRAPHS 3-5 OF THE EXISTING BY-LAWS REPLACES THE 25 !! PARAGRAPHS OF THE PROPOSED NEW BY-LAWS WITHOUT LOSS OF SPECIFICITY, REMAINS CLOSER TO THE EXISTING BY-LAWS, AND AVOIDS LINGUISTIC AMBIGUITIES.
This outline for succession is ambiguous as to how the President’s office is to be filled if there is no Vice-President or if the VP declines to succeed to the presidency (an unwillingness voiced by two VP’s in the last 10 years).
I’m not certain about the implied rule(s) for invoking the Trustees to appoint an officer. Specifically:
- Does Trustee appointment occur after succession fails, as a temporary measure until the special election is conducted?
-OR-
- Does Trustee appointment negate the need for a special election?
The main role of a Vice President is to succeed the President should his or her office become vacant prior to its specified expiration. This is the meaning of the prefix “Vice-“ = “second in command,” “junior.” It is used as such in governments, non-profit organizations (of universities, for example), and with qualifications in corporations.
If an elected Vice President is not willing to step up to the plate and succeed the President pro tem when called upon, he or she should not stand for election. This is part of the three year job description of a Vice President. I do not know of a single case in ASC’s history where this happened. Frank Galuska was Vice President and took over when the existing President resigned for personal reasons. I believe voters understand the meaning of “Vice-“ as I indicated and the existing by-laws honor it as well. The proposed by-laws confuse that meaning by roping a Past President into the picture.
If the office of the Vice President becomes vacant, the proposal calls for special elections, which would take place while the President is in office – to always have a successor available.
Please prove me wrong, but I think the two Vice Presidents you mentioned did not decline to succeed a President pro tem, but preferred not to stand presidential elections, which is anyone’s right and the responsible thing to do if one feels unable to do the job. Not wanting to be elected does not cause a succession problem and is far from ambiguous.
I think you confuse the pro tem succession of the Vice President to Presidency, with the provision in the existing by-laws that the current Vice President does not automatically succeed the previous President, only if elected or confirmed. The by-laws merely state that a Vice President does not need to go through the nomination process in the election following his or her tenure.
Since you are asking about the Trustees “emergency intervention”: Regarding the presidency, this intervention is called upon only when both, the office of the President and of its Vice president become vacant and a Vice President-Elect has not yet been elected. This unlikely event could happen only when the elected President and Vice President resign within the first two years after taking their offices. The provision appeals to the wisdom of the Trustees to assure that the Society continues to function. Since such an appointment must not violate the by-laws either, it can only be pro tem, i.e., until the regular terms of office expire and new elections are held as required.
the proposed formulation is nowhere ambiguous and cuts the 25 paragraph of the proposed article 6 to only a paragraph more than the existing by-laws.
I ASKED A COUPLE OF STUDENTS TO READ THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH FROM THE NEW VERSION. TO PROVIDE THE MISSING CONTEXT, I SUPPLIED THE REFERENCE TO “that” IN THE FIRST LINE.
The immediate Past President shall occupy that position by virtue of being the most recent sitting President succeeded by the current President. Under normal circumstances (officers serving their full terms) the immediate Past President shall be accorded that position until his / her second successor as President takes office, at which time his / her first successor becomes immediate Past President. In the event the first successor vacates the Presidency prematurely (for example, by resignation) the Executive Board shall decide whether the current immediate Past President or the first successor should henceforth occupy the position of immediate Past President. In the event a sitting immediate Past President vacates that position, the position will remain vacant until the next Presidential succession.
ALL THREE THOUGHT IT CONFUSING. THEN I ASKED THEM TO TAKE A PIECE OF PAPER AND CHART THE SPECIFIED SUCCESSION. ONE REMAINED CONFUSED. THE OTHERS SAID THEY NOW UNDERSTAND, BUT THERE WAWS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM.
It would be nice if we had less posts to fill. However, we need people to fill whatever posts we have. If we remove voting rights and have appointments, we still have to find willing people, and for some the personal incentive, the pay back, is reduced.
I would say that we should not have votes for unelected officers, although I can see reasons to allow such people limited voting rights on specific topics. As far as I remember, all officers on the Exec Board were elected, including all 3 vp’s.
if we stay with the existing by-laws, we would need a minimum of 7 candidates to fill 4 offices (P, VP, Treasurer, and Secretary) plus 3 for ombudspersons, which i suggest we eliminate. (the Past P is ex officio member of the Executive Board and the P-Elect overlaps for a short period). this is not too difficult for the nominations committee. i hope.
besides the difficulty of finding candidates for the special purpose VP. having them elected every 3 years freezes the activities of an Executive Board to what a previous Executive Board deemed useful, without that previous Board having had the chance to benefit from its decision. this is operatioanlly stagnating and truly unworkable.
any Executive Board must remain flexible, initiate and execute initiatives to the benefit of the Society without having to wait for nominations and elections. finding someone capable and willing to do a job and inviting him or her to do it should by much easier than going through an election process — besides appointing someone to do a job also allows the Board to let that person go if ineffective or superseeded by another activity. someone elected will simply stay there.
i do not thinkm it wise to give some VPs a vote and others not.
in practice, being on the Executive Board in advisory capacity affords special purpose VPs a voice that would undoubtedly count. think about it, how often have you actually formally cast votes when sitting together and trying to solve a problem? those with expertise in an area are most likely taken more seriously than those who do not know anything about the area and this is irrespective of having a vote.
formal voting is needed when the Executive Board needs to assume a major responsibility. for example, when appointing a journal editor. or another VP. for example, why should the VP for archives or a webmasted cast a vote on everything that comes to the Executive Board? speaking out does not require a vote.
i am particularly opposed to the idea of using voting privileges as a reward for contributing to our Society. it smells of the old association between money, power. and influence or control. i would hope that the ASC is not run be influence mongers but by people willing to offer their best, rewarded by the respect they have earned for what they do, and willing to be accountable to the membership. voting privileges are motivating the wrong kind of people.