Article 7. Ombudspersons
The office of the Ombudsperson shall consist of two individuals recognized for their ability to evaluate decisions made by the Society’s organs and relate them to membership interests and to the purposes of the Society. Ombudspersons must be Society members in good standing, but need not be voting members. Both individuals shall be elected for three year terms by the voting members of the Society. An individual may continuously serve as Ombudsperson for so long as he / she is nominated and elected (or otherwise approved) as prescribed herein.
The Ombudspersons shall have free access to the meetings of the Executive Board, the meetings of the Committees, and the files of the Society. They shall communicate and provide feedback to the Trustees and the Membership by any means and at any occasion deemed appropriate and shall report to the Membership whenever desired.
In the case of a conflict among officers or members of the Society, either Ombudsperson may serve as an arbiter if requested to do so by a party to the conflict.
Article 7 is essentially unchanged except for the following:
- replacement of the label ‘ombudsman’ with ‘ombudsperson’
- removal of the implied 2-term term limit (as for other offices)
PROPOPSAL Re. Article 7
I propose that this article be removed from the existing and new by-laws plus all references to the Ombudspersons in other parts of these by-laws.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSAL Re. Article 7
• In the existing by-laws, the Ombudsmen (sic) were conceived of as whistle blowers, as advocates of the membership, and arbiters of conflicts between the members and officers of the Society. This feedback mechanism from, to, and for the benefit of the membership was instituted in response to the autocratic Board of Directors of ASC before the institution of the current by-laws. Since the institution of the current by-laws 30 years ago, there has not been a single incident in which Ombudspersons had to intervene.
• Continuing this office is putting an unnecessary burden on the nomination committee to find four members willing to put their names up, expecting two to be selected by the Voting Members, without having to do anything and in fact not doing anything.
• While it is conceivable that a President or Executive Board could again become unfair and authoritarian, the existing by-laws have introduced other checks on this possibility, for example, the Trustees, making the two Ombudspersons obsolete.
The notion of abolishing the ombudsperson position has arisen multiple times over the last few years - many of these occasions having occurred during the by-laws revision process.
It would appear there is widespread sentiment in favor of dissolving this office - or at least no widespread enthusiasm or concern for continuing it.
Klaus’ comment of 24 October summarizes the points most commonly made in suggesting the office be deleted. In other words, the ‘case for the prosecution’ is out on the table for consideration.
However - in the interest of fairness - is there a ‘case for the defense’? Does anyone have any comments in favor of continuing the ombudsperson position? If so, this consultation period would be the time to make them known.
A MODEST PROPOSAL TO RETAIN THE OMBUDSPERSON POSITION
Until term limits recently caught up with me, I have served as an Ombudsperson for the ASC.
I confess that I am a bit dismayed that there is a proposal to eliminate the position altogether.
I have always felt that the position exemplified not only a core democratic commitment by the ASC, but a properly cybernetic manifestation of feedback on its own activities. If everything said is said by an observer, then I have always counted it a blessing that ASC could have institutionalized an observer-function that was, at its best, explicitly non-partisan
and even-handed. I have felt sort of honored to have been able to occupy such a position.
I agree that the Ombudsperson position has not within my memory been asked to intervene as a formal arbiter. It is also true that I could have been more active in providing feedback to the Board and to the membership, though it was a conscious decision on my part not to do so.
On the other hand, I have been approached by individual members of the ASC at two conferences to provide such counsel as I could. I do not think that I conveyed any particular wisdom, but I do think it was both appropriate and desirable that an Ombudsperson position existed such that particular concerns — however profound, however trivial — could be addressed in an informal and confidential manner.
I cannot see any advantage in eliminating such a resource (though, again, I readily concede others might fulfill this role more assiduously than I have).
I would also make the general argument for the desirability of dispersing power, of spreading it out and diluting it and entangling as many citizen-members of our small republic as possible in it. I confess that I like the idea of Ombudspersons occupying a tiny but acknowledged domain of influence, the better to represent other voices who may feel they lack a domain of influence altogether.
I do not for a moment believe that the present or past officers of ASC have acted in the past or are likely to act in the future with anything but the best interests of the society at heart. But I do think we should preserve a position that offers a more informal locus through which those whose voices may be small may still be heard.
I am in favor of keeping the position.
i appreciate. philip, your acknowledgment of the fundamentally democracy ensuring nature of the ombudsperson position. yes, it was the original idea, and innovative at that for professional associations, to provide a feedback channel from and to the membership against a potentially authoritarian president and board of directors that refused to be accountable to the members.
but that was history.
the reason for my proposing to abolish the ombudsperson position is
(a) that there was nothing to do for the last 30 years, owing, i believe, to other checks in the existing by-laws
(b) to relieve the nominating committee of the additional burden of finding four candidates, knowing, even assuring these candidates, that they would not have to do much if anything
(c) it doesn’t feel good to be rejected, which election requires, especially if nothing is demanded if elected. we do not need to create such feelings.
as far as you are concerned, i would hope that you would be a candidate for other offices of the society where you can make a difference. perhaps this should be the guiding criteria for any office: can i make a difference. you said yourself this wasn’t your experiences, notwithanding that you felt good to have been in that position.
since the society is small, we should make it as efficient, flexible, constructive, and forward oriented as possible
From my point of view, the arguments are familiar. The one I find pressing is the operational one: as a society we don’t have enough people willing to act as officers.
But I see the ombudsman role as a token of a concerned, liberal, democratic society that takes its responsibilities seriously. Given this attitude, I believe we should only drop this post very carefully. It is one thing to recognise an operational problem, it is another to remove such a powerful token.
I take Philip’s comments about the democratic role, acting as a confidant, and feedback as important: these constitute what I call the token: this role stands for important things.
My main concern is the loss of the token. Without that element, I find it easier to say goodbye to this role.
Thanks, Philip, for offering a ‘case for the defense’ and your views on the ombudsperson position.
It does no harm to continue prescribing this office as one of the society’s essential organs.
In any event, Murphy’s Law would dictate that the never-before-seen stream of requests for ombudsperson consultation would start up as soon asl we abolish the office.
Ranulph’s point about the ombudsperson office contributing to more offices than willing officers is well-taken.
Would it be a reasonable compromise to maintain the ombudsperson office but mandate only one officeholder rather than the current two?
As Chair of the Nominating committee I admit that I haven’t a clue where to find the next willing and suitable pair of ombudspersons. Most of the people in the society I know and trust have already contributed a lot to the organization.
Consequently for the purely practical reasons of being a small aging society with not enough recruitment of young dedicated people… I agree that this position could be abolished AS A REQUIRMENT.
Could we not reword the bylaw to state that “if conditions warrant, ombudspersons may be appointed by the executive OR if the membership so prefers, an election will be held”
NEW Article 7: General Business Meeting
The General Business Meetings shall be convened as often as feasible but at least every two years. It shall be convened by the Executive Board, either when it sees the need to report to the members or seek their advice, or when it is called for by petition of at least fifteen prevent of the Voting Members. The Executive Board shall determine a time and location that is convenient to most members, and inform all members at least 30 days in advance of such a meeting.
The President shall chair the General Business Meeting. In the President’s absence, any Voting Member of the Executive Board may chair the Meeting, and in their absence, any Voting Member present at that Meeting may chair it. The General Business Meeting can consider and decide any and all policy matters of the Society. However, if fewer than 1/2 of all Voting Members are present and in favor of a motion, that motion must either be put to a subsequent vote by all Voting Members of the Society, or remain advisory to the Executive Board.
At the General Business Meeting, it is expected that members of the Executive Board report on their activities. The Secretary shall present the minutes of the last General Business Meeting for approval or amendments, report on decisions made by the Executive Board since the last General Business Meeting, and keep minutes of current actions. The President shall report on the state of the Society, the Treasurer shall give a financial report, the Functional Officers shall account for their activities, and the Chairs of working committees shall report on their actions. All reports should be submitted in writing. In the absence of the officer responsible for a report, it should be presented by a designated person.
Within 15 days after a General Business Meeting, the Secretary shall make the minutes and reports available to all members of the Society.