Communication about Motion 104: Slate of Candidates

Winter Policy Council Meeting 2/07

 

 

Dear PC Members and other interested parties:

 

There is a new motion posted on the Policy Council Menu Page, and printed below. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb.

 

Any discussion on this motion should be conducted on the PC E-Meeting Discussion Forum, http://www.systemdynamics.org/pcdiscussion/index.php

under

Subject: V) Committee and Officer Reports; please use the "Post Reply" button to add your comments.

 

Subject: Slate of Candidates

Proposed by: Radzicki, Michael, Seconded by: Eberlein, Robert Voting open date: 2007.02.22 Voting close date: 2007.03.04

 

FORMAL MOTION: On behalf of the Nominating Committee I move that the following slate of candidates for officer and PC member posts (to take office in 2008) be accepted by the Policy Council.

 

OFFICERS:

President-Elect: Erling Moxnes (Norway)

Vice President-Finance: David Andersen (USA)

Vice President-Chapter Activities: Tim Hazlett (Australia)

 

POLICY COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Enzo Bivona (Italy)

Lars Weber (Germany)

Imrana Umar (Africa)

Burak Guneralp (Turkey)

 

Notes on Supporting Material: The Nominating Committee considered a diverse set of candidates for positions on the PC. Final approval is scheduled for the 2007 Summer PC meeting in Boston.

 

 

Hi Everyone,

 

We have officially come to the end of the winter policy council meeting and have not made any significant progress on any of the agenda. I am not sure if this is troubling to anyone else, but I think it is just horrible.

 

Since no motion has been made to adjourn this meeting, I think we should keep it open for another two weeks. This will give us a second chance to see if we can make a little progress. I know everyone is busy, but this is important, and it is something you agreed to be part of by accepting

a nomination - for those that are not voting PC members your participation is also welcome. Please note that there are two open motions that require voting.

 

A reminder on how this works:

 

Policy council discussion is done on the forum

 

http://www.systemdynamics.org/pcdiscussion

 

You need to log in to post - if you have forgotten how to do this

contact Roberta. All interested parties are welcome to participate.

 

Formal motions, seconds and voting needs to be done by logging in at:

 

http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb

 

Only voting members can participate in the voting.

 

I recognize that it would be easier if there were a single location for everything, but that is hard to get to work utilizing volunteer effort.

 

This list is intended to be used to inform people of discussion and votes in which they should be taking part. The discussion forum provides an archive which effectively creates minutes - email messages on this list do not.

 

Again please log on to the discussion forum and lets see if we can make a little bit of progress on the agenda.

 

                 Bob Eberlein

 

 

To everyone:

I am concerned that our new slate of PC officers and members has no women in it. If we vote this slate in as it stands, next year will see a decline in the number of women on the policy council, as Ginny will be stepping down. Since we will stand at 5 women out of a total of 25 officers and members, I see this as a problem. (After all these years, women will be only 20% of the PC.)

We have shown a steady increase over the last few years of women on the PC, including an increase of women in officer positions. If we had one woman in this slate, we would be holding steady. As it stands, we will decline. It would be a shame to plateau our trend -- let's definitely not go backwards.

I read that the nominating committee considered a diverse pool of candidates, and as the Diversity Committee Chair I definitely appreciate that. Yet I am sure there are some excellent female candidates in our Society. I think it is crucial that we actively maintain our improvements in recruiting women into leadership of the Society.

 

Deborah Campbell

 

 

This was a concern of the nominating committee, as well as geographic, non-MIT, and other forms of diversity. The list of potential candidates contained a number of women, and one was asked to serve. Unfortunately, she was unable to sign on this year. Why another women was not then asked I do not know. Mike (Nominating Committee Chair) will have to respond as he did the "asking." One possibility is that by the time this occurred the other candidates were asked and accepted, thereby closing out a number of regional slots, and the next on the list in the region in the remaining open region was a man.

Given this experience, perhaps a better approach in future years will be to assure that we achieve our diversity goals before filling other slots.

 

Jim Lyneis

 

 

Thanks Jim for the information. I understand the possibility you describe, yet do not think it keeps us from making a change to the slate right now. While the candidates for various regions and other various diversity slots may have "accepted", the slate will not be final until we and the membership vote it in.

I am very pleased to learn that there were several women in the list of candidates. I request the Nominating Committee recruit one of these other female candidates to replace one of the men listed to ensure we have a slate that at least keeps us steady with female representation on the PC.

 

Deborah Campbell

 

 

Hi Deborah,

I sympathize with your concerns. However, to me it's quite unclear how we should decide on which man to "push out" now and based on which criteria. I assume we just need an improved process for next year!?

 

Andreas Groessler

Hi Deborah,

[I'm not sure if this is the appropriate medium for the following message but I do want to be supportive of this forum, so..]

Let's look ahead.

I know two excellent Dutch female SD practitioners: özge pala and Kim van Oorschot. You may have targeted özge already, but perhaps not yet Kim. She was with Minase, my former consulting company, and for the past half year at INSEAD.

I support your fundamental point: If we do not look actively for more diversity, it is unlikely that we will see it.

 

Hank Akkerman

 

 

I think that I can speak for the committee, and especially for the chair, Mike Radzicki, that diversity was a serious concern and that the fact that no female was nominated was not intentional. Mike was very proactive in proposing female candidates.

As I suggested earlier, we did have a proposed slate that had a female candidate, who unfortunately was not able to accept that position. When this occurred, we went to the next name on the list in that region, without thinking about the fact that it left no females on the nominated slate. And as I said, the others had already been asked and accepted.

Of course we could withdraw the nomination from one of these gentlemen, and put him up next year. Or, we could correct our error next year. I personally favor the latter, but it’s up to the PC to decide.

 

Jim Lyneis

 

 

I believe what Jim suggested would make more sense which is to correct it next year and to give us the chance during the conf. in Boston to talk about this issue and to have more opportunities to look for the most active females.

Khaled Wahba, PhD

 

In response to Andreas regarding how we would decide: it appears from the discussion that the nominating committee had a list of prioritized candidates from each region that they used to recruit candidates. It seems (from my outside vantage point) that it would be fairly straightforward to find a female on one of the lists that is in the highest position, ask her if she would be interested and able to participate, and if she accepts, let the male candidate from the same region know that he will be considered for next year. If she does not accept, move on to the next female candidate and do the same. Jim did mention that there were several female candidates considered.

In my view it is actually much easier for us to correct this unintentional oversight (that a female had been lost from the slate) this year rather than next year. If we correct it next year the following must happen: to get back to the numbers we have this year, we have to propose 2 female candidates. To make progress again on our commitment to increase the gender diversity of the PC, we have to propose 3 female candidates. Proposing 2 female candidates has only happened once in the history of the PC that I can determine. I think proposing 3 women next year would be more difficult than postponing the one man for a year.

Deborah Campbell

 

There are two very important issues here: one is the diversity of the policy council, the second is the process by which we govern ourselves.

I agree with all of Deborah's points on the diversity of the policy council. We do charge the nominating committee with keeping that in mind. From all the discussion it does appear that the committee made a good faith effort at working toward gender diversity. Having someone refuse a nomination is actually a pretty rare thing, and clearly threw a wrench in the works. The irony, of course, is that someone responsible enough to refuse a nomination because she could not commit the time required for the activity is exactly the type of person we want. We may want to develop a different procedure for developing nominations, perhaps looking for people who will actively declare interest and state in a paragraph or two what they would like to bring to the table. That pool could be augmented by people asked by the President to declare their interest. Then the selection process would give us people who are both willing and enthusiastic and we would not hit this type of problem.

The second issue is process. Just in terms of rules of procedure we are now in roll call for a vote. In principle, the minute voting opens discussion should stop. In a physical meeting that is how it works. It does not seem helpful to stop discussion mid vote electronically, but we should not stray to far from this protocol. Certainly there is not mechanism to stop a vote unless a quorum is not achieved.

Bob Eberlein

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

As chair of the Nominating Committee I guess it's my duty to weigh-in on the issue that Deborah Campbell has raised. Although I don't think it's prudent for me to disclose the ebb and flow of the discussions that led to the slate of candidates put forth by the Nominating Committee, I can tell you that the Committee was keenly aware of the issue of diversity (geographic, age, race, MIT/non-MIT, and, of course, gender) and that our work took two or three weeks longer than I anticipated due to the passionate debate surrounding diversity issues. That no women ended-up on the slate we submitted is, in my view, very unfortunate. But I can tell you that women were seriously considered for virtually every open position (including president) and that one woman declined an invitation to serve on the Policy Council. I can also tell you that, even as Society President, I was out-voted by the committee a couple of times. In other words, I can report to you that no one individual (even the President) was able to ram-rod anything through the Committee. Finally, although the present slate contains no women I think that, in the end, the Committee (which, by the way, contained a woman) did an excellent job in assembling a slate that represents the other important aspects of diversity it considered.

 

All that said, Deborah does raise a legitimate issue. As to a resolution, I have several thoughts. First, I think it would be a very bad idea to go to a candidate who has already been asked (and has agreed) to enthusiastically serve the Society and tell him that, although he's qualified, we'd now like him to step aside because he's the wrong sex. Rather, let me suggest that the Council choose one of the following options.

 

1. Accept the current slate of candidates and vow to do better next time. Should the PC elect this option, I'm sure the Diversity Committee would be willing to provide assistance to next year's Nominating Committee on how to arrive at a slate that better represents all aspects of Society diversity.

 

2. Appeal to the Society's Constitution and note that the PC can consist of up to 16 members:

 

Quote: "The Society shall be governed by a Policy Council (also referred to in the Articles of Organization as the Board of Directors and hereafter referred to as the Council) composed of the Executive Committee and from twelve (12) to sixteen (16) other members. The number of members elected to serve on the Council shall be determined by the Council."

 

and that (a) the PC must annually tell the Nominating Committee how many candidates to put forth and that (b) the Nominating Committee will "normally" submit to the PC two candidates for each position:

 

Quote: "The Council shall notify the Nominating Committee of the offices and the positions on the Council to be filled in the pending election. The Council shall also instruct the Nominating Committee as to the number of members to be elected to serve on the Council for the ensuing three years. The Council will also notify the Nominating Committee of any subsequent vacancies that may arise while the Nominating Committee is still conducting its business. The Committee shall normally submit at least two nominations for every office or position except that, at the discretion of the Council, a single nomination may be submitted for the office of Secretary. The Nominating Committee shall strive to ensure diversity on the Policy Council in terms of geographic representation, sex, and other factors deemed representative of the Society at large."

 

Should the PC elect to follow option number two, it could instruct the Nominating Committee to provide it with up to four more PC candidates (i.e., a maximum of eight) and/or to provide it with a second candidate for each open PC position.

 

I leave it up to the Council to decide on the best course of action.

 

Cheers.

 

Mike Radzicki

Past President

 

PS - As a caveat, I'm not entirely sure that the quotes above (taken from the Society's web site) are from the most recent version of the Society's Constitution. Someone (Ed Andersen has volunteered to keep the Constitution up to date) needs to check this.

 

 

hi all,

in addition to the suggestions above, regarding potential female candidates for policy council in 2007:

(1) Kim van Oorschot (The Netherlands, suggested by Henk Akkermans - Ozge Pala already on PC)
(2) Dr Susan Howick (Uni of Strathclyde, Scotland, suggested by Brian Dangerfield)

i would like to suggest:

(3) Dr Susanne Tepe (School of Applied Sciences, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia - Susanne is an active contributor to both the SD & ANZSYS communities).

it may be that the Nominating committee have already approached one of these members. in which case i would recommend that both of the others be appointed to the Policy council this year (subject to agreement by the Nominating committee). if not i would suggest the NC select 2 of these suggestions - or other suggestions?)

admittedly this would give us 6 new members of PC this year (retaining the 4 new members who have agreed to stand on PC). however, as Mike R. has outlined for us, this is acceptable in our constitution [6 could be a 'one' off - as is our 50 year celebrations!]

this would certainly provide us with a means of addressing the 'gap' that Deborah has drawn our attention to, and in addition it would be sending a loud message about the 'future' of SD, compared with the male dominated environment of SD that existed at the beginning of our history 50 years ago.

Bob Cavana

 

 

Hello colleagues,

 

We have extended our electronic Winter PC meeting in order to have more discussion on the forum about the important decisions we need to make.  Important discussion has begun about the slate of candidates, yet voting on this slate is scheduled to close tomorrow.  I believe that the issues need to be understood by all and that the discussion deserves the opportunity to come to its natural conclusion before voting closes.

 

To that end, I submitted a motion to extend the voting period by two weeks to the PC website.  Unfortunately, while I tried to force the starting date for voting of my extension motion to be today, the computer overrode my desires, so the motion I’ve submitted online is worthless because we cannot vote on it until long after the voting closes for the slate.

 

Therefore, I submit my motion to the PC Listserv, probably completely out of all proper order as Roberts would have it.  I think the challenges of the electronic forum and the lack of involvement on the forum from many PC members or interested parties up to this point warrant some bending of the rules.

 

My motion:

 

Moved that we extend the voting time period for the slate of candidates by two weeks.  There is active discussion on the forum about the slate.  Due to the time it takes to conduct discussion asynchronously, as well as the issues of usability expressed by members who we want to have a voice, the issues need to be understood by all and the discussion completed before voting closes.

 

Anyone willing to second this motion?

 

Best regards,

Deborah

 

 

Hi Deborah,

 

There are two reasons why the determination of a slate should be completed with some haste.

 

The first relates to central office operations. These are managed against a demanding timeline which is moving quickly to conference preparations. The slate put forward has been included in the spring newsletter which has been collated with membership renewal notices and put into envelopes. These were scheduled to be mailed on Monday, and that has been postponed. The news, and the renewal notices, does lose some currency as time passes.

 

The second relates to the procedure for confirming the nomination slate as the nominees of record. To do this the slate needs to be announced before the end of March, so that individuals who choose to mount a campaign for any office will have time to do so. Should this happen later, so that people are not informed in a timely manner, then we would, I believe, need to revert to a formal vote by the entire society membership which is an expensive proposition.

 

              Bob Eberlein

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

hi all.

i am happy to second Deborah Campbell's motion:

 

Moved that we extend the voting time period for the slate of candidates by two weeks.  There is active discussion on the forum about the slate.  Due to the time it takes to conduct discussion asynchronously, as well as the issues of usability expressed by members who we want to have a voice, the issues need to be understood by all and the discussion completed before voting closes

 

i think Deborah has raised some excellent points that require closer consideration. Or as Mike R. has suggested we might need to add a couple of people to PC to give the right 'balance'.

 

this is particularly critical this year, as it is our 50th anniversary of SD.

 

however, i am not now on Policy council, so i am not sure if my 'seconding' is constitutional?

 

all the best,

 

Bob

 

Bob Cavana

 

 

Dear Members of the Policy Council:

 

I have just seconded Deborah's motion for a number of reasons (I hope that I did it correctly).  First, I think that there are a number of issues that have been raised about the slate and I hope we can all find the time to feel good about the work that has been done by or nominating committee while addressing these issues.  (I have read Mike Radzicki's posting on the work of the nominating committee this year and based on his comments I will continue my vote to support the current slate.  But I welcome the chance to have further discussion.)

 

Second, I welcome a chance to use our electronic system a bit more.  A number of persons have worked hard to give us the forum to hold discussions and we now have a chance to use that forum to hold such a discussion.  If we have a topic to discuss, we owe it to ourselves to use the tools available to discuss that topic.

 

I realize that there are good and pressing reasons to vote against extending the discussion.  For one, I understand that we have to get back to the membership with the slate of officers under a strict timeline from our by-laws.  Also, we had an open period of discussion (that drew little comment) and we should stick to our rules of discussion.

 

All that said, I am in favor of extending the conversation if it can lead us in a productive direction.

 

By the way, I am uncertain about the wisdom of posting this message on the open e-mail as opposed to just making the second within the policy council.  Forgive me if I have opened a rat’s nest here...

 

Best,

 

David Andersen

 

 

Dear Members of the Policy Council:

 

The March issue of the System Dynamics Newsletter is a vehicle we have used to notify our membership of the slate of candidates. The Newsletter was scheduled to be placed in the mail on Monday morning, March 5, to act in accordance with the condition in Policy 7--nominations made by the Nominating Committee are to be published in a letter mailed to our members during the first quarter of the fiscal year. I will hold the mailing pending the resolution of this issue. Best regards, Roberta

 

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

I feel that it is very important to respond to several people's comments about the process of the PC accepting a nominated slate of new members.

 

Let me begin by saying I applaud all that the nominating committee has done in their work for this slate.  It is obvious not only from Mike's description, but also from the comments that Jim L. made on the PC forum that the pool of candidates the nominating committee used to select a slate from was diverse.  Unfortunately, as Jim said in his post, when one woman declined to accept the offer, it was an unintentional oversight that another woman was not asked from their pool of candidates.  In spite of the good work of the committee, I don't think this is an oversight that we can afford, considering the low representation of women on the PC we will have next year if we accept this slate as is.  It will take us nominating three new women on the slate next year to make up for this loss and to continue our progress in increasing the number of women on the PC.  My previous experience on the nominating committee informs me that this could be a difficult charge, especially in regions outside the US and Europe.

 

That said, I am alarmed at the number of people who have expressed concern about going back to a candidate and telling them they will not be brought on the council this year and we would like to consider them for next year.  (There is no reason we have to tell them explicitly why, though I don't see a problem with that either.  "To ensure the ongoing diverse representation of the PC, we have chosen a different make up of the slate." Or some such.)

 

But my issue is this: What is the purpose of bringing the slate to the PC for a discussion and vote if we are not willing to make a change? 

 

The Policy Council is charged with ensuring the slate satisfies all the criteria before continuing on to the membership approval process.  Let's be sure we discuss whether it does before we move on.  And not be hesitant to make it meet our criteria if it does not.

 

Deborah

 

 

 

Bob Cavana's point about the idea of adding members to the PC seems like a good idea in that it would increase the social networks that folks can tap into and draw on for nominating members to the policy council. One of the constraints is how many people members of PC know who would be good for the PC, willing to serve, and reflect the diversity of the SDS. Adding new members with more diversity would not only bring more diversity to the slate, but expand the potential social networks used in recruiting PC members in years to come. In contrast, losing representation of women on PC will make it more difficult to recruit and retain women in the future. The question is then really about whether one wants to deal with this issue today, or postpone it and deal with one that is more difficult later. It's also important to remember that SDS is not the only organization making efforts to increase diversity. For example, IEEE has made strides in increasing the number of women while overall membership has declined.

Peter Hovmand

 

 

Deborah Campbell writes: "I am alarmed at the number of people who have expressed concern about going back to a candidate and telling them they will not be brought on the council this year...."

 

If there is concern about disappointing someone already nominated, I would be pleased to resign from the Policy Council immediately and submit my name for consideration in 2008.  In the meantime if a Policy Council member wants my thoughts on any topic, s/he only would have to ask. Jim Thompson

 

 

Krystyna has been unable to access the PC Forum or the PC Listserv this week, so she asked me to post these comments for her:

I tried to second your motion but [my email was rejected by the Listserv.]  I am frustrated as well with the setup of the on-line forum.  I don't use such forums/fora on a regular basis, so the structure always confuses me.

I agree with you that there should be at least one woman on the slate.  Waiting until next year does not seem satisfactory if there are women candidates available, which it seems there are. 

 

 

This is the ruling of the president on the motion to extend voting. As the chair of the meeting it is his decision to determine what is, and is not, out of order. I will post, in a separate message, the one procedurally correct recourse that can be taken to reverse the vote.

 

               Bob Eberlein

 

2007-3-5 10:00 (Beijing time)

 

Dear All,

 

I did pay attention to Deborah C.’s "I apologize for being unable to tell from some of the names ... are any of the proposed slate of new PC members women?”  on Feb. 27 while she posted and "...to...recruit one of these other female candidates to replace one of the men listed ..." on March 1 (But, I supposed, it’s unreasonable.), etc. I  do agree with the comments from Jim L.(on Feb. 28 and March 2), Andreas G. (on March 2), Khaled W. et al. and the explanation with suggestion by Mike R. dated 2007-3-4 8:36.

 

Facing the current controversy I think,

 

1. We have to let the voting proceed as scheduled on the slate of officers because we just can't image anything allows a vote to be interrupted.

 

2. Making a new Motion to consider "Appealing to the Society's Constitution and note that the PC can consist of up to 16 members" (From Michael Radzicki on March 3, 2007) in order to increase a female PC member for next year ASAP.

 

All the best,

 

Qifan Wang

 

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I had the pleasure yesterday of reading Robert's Rules in order to understand exactly how to deal with the issue of the nominating committees proposed slate.

 

First I would like to say that the revised rules do not completely address electronic formats and, in fact, mandate that procedures for these formats be adopted into the bylaws. I will try to produce a document that addresses that we can adopt at a future meeting and thus remove any ambiguity.

 

There, however, absolutely is no way to interrupt a vote in progress. What can be done is referred to as "Recalling a question." This is a motion to revisit a completed vote. It can be made as long as no action has been taken on the motion and within a specific (but unspecified) period of time. This motion must be made by a voting member who voted to carry the question that is being recalled (in this case voted yes for the motion). The motion can be seconded by any voting member.

 

If a motion to recall the question is made and seconded no action may be taken on the original motion. Debate proceeds according to the standard rules for any motion.

 

Anyone considering making such a motion please consider very carefully the consequences. This will put off our announcement of the slate of candidates by approximately three weeks. Since no one who voted on the original motion has indicated they would change their vote, and I know I would not, it is likely that the motion to recall would fail. So we would be left with the same slate but with a delayed announcement.

 

The President dictates how long action on a motion should be deferred, and the window kept open for a motion to recall the question. I would suggest that 24 hours is an appropriate amount of time.

 

           Bob Eberlein

 

 

I just want to give my view on the nominations issue, and am using the listserve since it has a better chance of reaching everyone.

In short, I am in favor of recalling the motion for reconsideration and amending it to be more gender diverse (at least one woman).  As with most important issues, delay leads to future practical difficulties and more importantly can invoke dynamics of resentment, lack of commitment, distrust and ill-will into the future.   
 
I see the key factors supporting recall as: our stated commitment to gender diversity (after enthusiastic acceptance of the diversity study), the recognized lack of balance on the council, and the fact that the electronic meeting difficulties have hampered timely and quality discussion.  So I think we owe reconsideration and change to ourselves and our sense of "doing the right thing." 

Finally, I need to say I am impressed by Deborah's unyielding commitment to something she believes in and her ability to keep the issue grandly alive!  This takes courage.

David W. Packer

 

 

 

I do not consider the current situation as needing recall of the motion and strongly oppose the suggestion to do so.

 

In my view, we have an institutional responsibility to do our job within the confines of normal procedures unless we believe that irreparable harm will be done, such as discovering a fact that compromises a nomination.  That is not the case here.  The current situation is that a slate of nominees has been proposed, seconded and voted on.  None of the nominees has been found to be undeserving or in any way compromised.  In a nutshell, there is no offense. 

 

The Society’s Policy Council turns over in part each year, and the issue is best addressed in the next voting cycle.  In the coming year, there is time to consider which process, if any, needs amendment. 

 

Jim Thompson

 

 

Bob's description of "recalling a question" (reconsidering a motion) is the way I understand it too (I used to have to know a lot about this stuff), but operationally it is not really complicated and it is a good idea to do it if the group realizes that they may have prematurely gone to vote before everything that needed to be heard was heard.

 

Anybody who voted in favor can move to reconsider.  Anybody (for or against) can second.  Lacking a second, the motion to reconsider just fails (very quickly).

 

Once the move to reconsider is seconded, discussion immediately shifts to why reconsider.  Once everyone has had their say on why reconsider, the group votes on that.  If it fails to gain a majority, it's defeated and the original vote stands.

 

It could happen quickly.  The motion to "recall" or "reconsider" a question can actually be helpful in speeding the process by focusing the discussion where it needs to be focused.

 

And the purpose of a motion to reconsider is really healthy.  It's designed to help a parliamentary group avoid making a decision the majority would come to see as a mistake.

 

I would say Qifan's ruling leaves out the motion to reconsider the slate.  As chair of the meeting he can't make a ruling like that.  If someone moves to recall or reconsider a question (in this case the motion to accept the slate), it has to be recognized by the chair and considered for a second, and then for discussion.

 

...George

 

 

I was going to respond to Jim Thompson's note, but George Richardson has done a fine job of explaining reconsideration which is well within the confines of normal procedure.  It often makes possible a better decision when the original one is done with inadequate information or thought; I have seen it have this effect several times in our democratic town meetings.  Dave

David W. Packer

 

 

I would like to move to reconsider the motion to approve the slate of officers proposed by the nominating committee. I initially voted "YES" but am very concerned that we continue the discussion, which is critical to the health and future of the society.

 

Ginny Wiley

 

 

I second Ginny’s motion to reconsider the motion to approve the slate of candidates.

 

Deborah

 

 

Please help me to understand if I got the idea:

We have to vote first about the motion to reconsider the motion and, if it get the majority of votes, we will discuss for another period of time about the gender issue, and meanwhile, the nominating committee will propose another slate of officers which include, at least, one women?

Thanks a lot.

Gloria

 

 

Hi All,

 

A motion to Reconsider the reconsider the approval of the slate of officers presented by the nominating committee has been made and seconded. To expedite discussion on this motion I ask that the discussion and vote take place via the email list and that the Secretary of the Society archive that discussion for inclusion in the minutes of the Winter Policy Council meeting.

 

We will continue discussion on this motion till Midnight Albany time on Thursday, March 8th. At that time voting will commence. Votes should be sent to the Society Office < > to be tallied. Voting will remain open till Midnight Albany time on Saturday, March 10th. The vote should include your name, your position on the policy council, and Yes, No or Abstain. A Yes vote indicates that you want to reopen the motion to approve the slate put forward by the nominating committee, a No vote means that you would like the approval of the slate to stand.

 

Please note that to send a message to this list you will need to first compose and send the message to < >. Shortly after that you will receive an automatic response from the listserve. You will need to reply OK to that message for your message to be posted.

 

As I will be traveling during this time(it has been postponed for more than 2 months and I must not arrive after March 10,2007), and also am in a very different time zone from many of you, if any intervention is required by the chair of the meeting Jim Lyneis and Mike Radzicki will be taking on this task with me.

 

Qifan Wang

President

 

 

Hi Gloria,

 

The current motion, if it passes, will place the slate proposed by the nominating committee before us. We would then debate and vote on that proposed slate again.

 

If that vote were to fail then we do need to find a new slate. Ed Anderson is reading up on this. I do not actually know the details of how it works if that happens.

 

                Bob Eberlein

 

 

My understanding of this motion to reconsider is that the discussion now turns to whether to overturn the decision on the slate of nominees.

 

During that discussion people are pretty free about how they choose to talk about the previous slate.  They can propose alternative criteria for the slate or express whatever concerns they have about it.  (These concerns are important, as they would guide the nominating committee in coming up with an alternative slate, if that's the decision.)

 

After that discussion, the vote to reconsider the slate is taken.  If it passes, the previous vote on the slate of nominees is voided.   At that point, it would be standard practice (and is probably fastest) to send the slate back to the nominating committee to come up with a second slate striving to meet the considerations brought up in the discussion.

 

When the slate comes up again to the Policy Council, it would be moved, seconded, discussed (probably not for long!), and voted on, just like the first slate.

 

Of course, if the motion to reconsider the slate fails, the original vote on the nominees holds, just as if the reconsidering never happened.

 

I don't think there are any lurking subtleties here about such a process:  it ought to look essentially obvious to everybody involved, or it won't serve its purpose.  And the purpose is simply for the Council to be sure it's doing what it really wants to do with its slate of nominees.

 

(I hope these thoughts help.)

...George

 

 

Hi Everyone,

 

I just want to clarify the motion before this council and its meaning.

The motion is to reconsider the approved motion for the slate of candidates. If the current motion passes, then we will need to vote again on the previous motion. Approving the motion to reconsider does not, as George seemed to indicate, mean that the prior motion is rejected, but only that it will be revolted.

 

According to Robert's rules, revoting should take place immediately after motion to reconsider, without further discussion. What this means is that the merits of the original motion can and should be discussed during the discussion of the motion to reconsider.

 

I apologize for the confusion of language. In more algorithmic terms

 

1. Vote on the current motion. A no vote or no quorum --> Slate is approved otherwise go to step 2.

 

2. Vote again on the slate proposed. A yes vote or no quorum --> Slate is approved otherwise go to step 3.

 

3. Find a new slate - George’s suggestion for a procedure to do this seems sensible, but there may be others.

 

I hope that is helpful.

 

              Bob Eberlein

 

 

Dear Policy Council Members,

 

Now that we are voting to reconsider the slate of candidates, I think that I can speak for the Nominating Committee in seeking guidance from the Policy Council on our objective for diversity.  This will help us in reformulating a slate for this year, as well as for future years.

 

In Deborah’s posting of February 28th, she states that:  “I am concerned that our new slate of PC officers and members has no women in it. If we vote this slate in as it stands, next year will see a decline in the number of women on the policy council, as Ginny will be stepping down. Since we will stand at 5 women out of a total of 25 officers and members, I see this as a problem. (After all these years, women will be only 20% of the PC.)  We have shown a steady increase over the last few years of women on the PC, including an increase of women in officer positions. If we had one woman in this slate, we would be holding steady. As it stands, we will decline. It would be a shame to plateau our trend -- let's definitely not go backwards.”

 

As Deborah notes, if we stick with the current slate we will be losing one women on the PC and therefore be down to 5, or 20% of the PC.  As we reconsider the proposed slate of candidates, we have the option of replacing one or more of the existing candidates with a woman.  If we replace one, we keep the current level of female PC representation; if we replace two, we can get back on the trend; if we replace three, accelerate that trend.  So if we do vote to reconsider, I would like us to also give some direction to the Nominating Committed on whether to seek one or two female candidates.

 

I can’t find anything in my notes from our earlier discussions of diversity that the Policy Council set an explicit goal for increased female representation – if there was an explicit goal, I missed it and apologize.  If my counting is correct, women make up 15-20% of Society Membership, so 5 PC members is consistent with share of membership.  Of course, there is no reason why PC representation need be equal to Society representation, and could, even should, lead the way toward increased membership.  If we vote to revisit the slate, let’s agree on a number for this year and future years.

 

In addition, there are other types of diversity that we should consider:  geographic region; race; age; student vs. academic vs. consultant/practitioner; MIT vs. non-MIT; and others I am sure.  It would be useful to have some guidance here as well.  If I have time, I will begin to collate information on this for our deliberations.  In the interim, it would be useful to know what types of diversity should be considered.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Jim Lyneis,

Member of the Nominating Committee

 

 

I believe that this motion to reconsider the vote for officers should fail.  This is not because there might well be more women in the Society leadership, but rather because the case has not been convincingly made that we should negate the sincere and extensive work done by the nominating committee.

 

The discussion of adding women to the slate has been made in isolation from other issues against which it should be balanced. There has been no argument that women in leadership positions are out of balance with the fraction of women in the Society; in fact, it appears that women are well represented in relation to their fraction of membership.

 

Also, the discussion of diversity has been conducted entirely within its own context and without consideration of what is best for the Society.  I do not have any information about the level of competence or the dedication to the advancement of the Society represented by the possible women choices.  However, the discussion has not given any clues as to the experience, qualifications, and dedication to the Society of the women who were not nominated.  One must assume that the proponents of this motion believe that there are women who are better qualified than one or more of those who were nominated, but that case has not even been mentioned in the communications that I have read.

 

It seems to me that this campaign is being introduced very late in the proceedings. Because it was not started in time to receive full consideration from the nominating committee, I believe that we should honor the efforts of the nominating committee and defer the matter of diversity for next year's consideration.  There are many other kinds of competing diversity issues in addition to gender.  Also, the dominant consideration should be given to how we can best develop strength in the Society and the field of system dynamics.

--

---------------------------------------------------------

Jay W. Forrester

Professor of Management

Sloan School

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

 

 

hi all,

am i missing something here?

why cant we just accept the slate of officers as put forward by the nominating committee, and in addition, why doesnt the nominating committee just acknowledge that we have a 'pipeline' issue here that we are going to have an 'insufficient' number of female policy council members in one or two years [unfortunately overlooked earlier].

 

since Mike R. has advised us that we can have up to 4 extra members on PC according to our constitution, i would have thought the only issue the nominating committee has to address is whether they recommend one or two of the female candidates suggested in this discussion (or others they may be aware of).

 

personally i would favour adding two extra women to the PC at this stage, for the following reasons:

(1) we will have a shortage of women on PC in a couple of years, and two extra at this stage will help the situation in the future.

(2) this year is our 50th anniversary of SD. what better time to correct some of the 'shortages' of the past?

(3) more women on PC probably gives a better balance of views to SDS policy making, and it certainly will act as better role models for women wanting to join the SD profession and SDS from around the world.

 

thanks.

 

Bob

 

Bob Cavana

'Past' Vice President (at Large), SDS

 

 

 

Hi Jim,

 

There is a consensus that we would like to work toward diversity in the Society as a whole and in the policy council. From my perspective the goal in this not to achieve any sort of proportional representation, but rather to reach into the places where the people can bring the most to the Society and to enable the field to bring the most to society at large. I am not sure that everyone would agree on the specifics of that diversity, but I personally would like to see more representation outside of the US and Western Europe and I believe that is happening.

 

I would hate to mandate any sort of quota to the Nominating Committee, or to have the nomination process devolve to a meeting of the policy council. We appoint a nominating committee of experienced and responsible people that we believe can work to achieve the goals of the Society and I strongly believe that that is the right thing to do.

 

Normally I would agree with George that reconsidering a vote can be a sensible and helpful thing to do as it allows people to express their opinions again after more reflection. Because of delays involved in the electronic meeting format, however, I do not think that this is a good idea. For the original motion 19 people voted to pass it and 6 did not vote. We should vote no on reconsideration and move on.

 

         Bob Eberlein

 

 

Jim Lyneis asks for categories and quotas to narrow the nominating process. There are likely to be some for whom that would be appealing and some that would find it unappealing.  I fall into the latter group but think a discussion over the next year on the topic of quotas, goals and guidelines would help future nominating committees. 

 

For the current year, I will vote "no" on the motion to reconsider and support efforts to study the nominating process going forward.

 

Jim Thompson

 

 

For the record, I am not in favor of quotas, but broad objectives in line with Jay's comments.  However, my interpretation of the discussion thus far is that we had adopted at least a defacto quota system, if not a formal one. I apologize if I misinterpreted the discussion.

 

My sole purpose in raising this issue is to provide clearer guidelines to the Nominating Committee so that we can avoid these problems in the future. While I agree with someone's earlier comment about "what's the purpose of voting if we can't vote no," I would think that for something like this it would be best to have the nominated slate be consistent with Society objectives the first time around, so we don't have to vote no.

 

Jim Lyneis

 

 

I favor the motion for reconsideration.  As with most important issues, delay is easier but leads to increased future difficulties. More importantly it can invoke the dynamics of resentment and lack of commitment into the future. I appreciate the work of the Nominating Committee who dealt with a number of dimensions, but I think this one (gender) which has been a clear Policy Committee focus was not fully enough considered.  It deserves another look.   
 
I see the key factors supporting recall as: our stated commitment to gender diversity (after enthusiastic acceptance of the diversity study), the recognized lack of balance on the council, and the fact that the electronic meeting difficulties have hampered timely and quality discussion.  So I think we owe reconsideration to our sense of "doing the right thing."
Dave 

David W. Packer

 

 

Dear all,

Not being a voting member of the PC, I would not want to get involved (lucky me) into the complex issue of recalling a motion.

But as a member of the nominating committee, I do want to say a few words on the issue of diversity in the PC, about the current candidates on the table and what can be done.

- I do agree that the fact that we have no woman candidate in the list is an undesirable situation.  I wish the lady that we originally voted for did not refuse. Or that we had a 'second best female candidate' in our list that we could immediately agree on.

- Having said this, I also want to add that although the situation is undesirable, it is not a very severe problem (that can not be corrected in a short time).  I am personally NOT against nominating a woman candidate in lieu of a male one in our list, if the PC votes this way.  However, I suggest that PC carefully weigh the many pros and cons (is it worth it, delays, side implications etc) of the issue. I do not think that it is a one-dimensional issue.

- Related to the item above. We had a long discussion by emails, considering factors like: gender, international representation, 'MIT-bias issue'... AND most importantly keeping in mind that whoever we nominate must be well-qualified for the position (i.e not 'any' Turkish guy or any woman or any man or any non-MIT person...) AND finally the person must accept. In short, it is a quite difficult multi-dimensional problem. I am certainly NOT arguing that we made an optimal choice; it could probably be better. But I do want to point to the many dimensions of the problem.

 

Best to all from Istanbul!

Yaman Barlas

 

 

Hello all,

 

I am currently composing my email in favor of reconsideration, but in the meanwhile I have been reading the numerous emails coming in from everyone (isn’t this discussion great!).

 

The one thing I read over and over that I cannot get a handle on is the concern with delaying our decision about the slate.  What is so dire about a delay?  I understand from Roberta’s email that she is delaying the newsletter in order to include the final slate.  This seems appropriate, and considering the importance with which we regard our leadership, delaying the announcement and the newsletter seem completely reasonable.

 

Is there something about delaying this important decision that is more dire than I am aware of?

 

Deborah

 

 

Dear Policy Council members,

 

I find that even though there are other diversity issues that deserve consideration, the gender issue is especially relevant; I don't find that women's share in the PC should be bound to their share in the "society", and I do not favor quotas.  In my opinion, there are sufficient reasons to think this over.

 

I think Bob's suggestion is a good compromise.  I trust in that the nominating committee has done its best, in other words: they have come up with the best possible slate of people who accept to be part of the slate.  But since they may not have given the gender criterion this specific weight, using the possibility to have two extra members who would be women avoids the "pipeline" problem to become worse. 

 

I guess the committee would have to do some extra searching in order to come up with two women who have the qualities and accept?  How much time would they have (or would the available time be sufficient)?

 

I also think that this whole discussion shows that the PC should spend some time to design an explicit policy regarding the dimensions of diversity that should be taken into account and how this would be done.

 

"Saludos",

 

Martin Schaffernicht

 

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

I have been following the nomination slate issue with interest.  I think I am no longer a voting PC member but an 'interested party', but I must admit I would vote 'No' to the motion to reconsider.  When I chaired a Nominating Committee we took great trouble in considering all factors to try to ensure maximum diversity (gender, geographical, etc.) whilst striving to put forward the best possible candidates for each post to best serve the Society and its members - I am sure Mike and his group were no less diligent. (I also think it would be a gross discourtesy to eliminate now someone who has been approached and  has agreed in good faith to serve on the PC.)

 

It is unfortunate maybe that there is no female nominee on this occasion, but others are pointing to the importance of avoiding imbalance in geographic representation and other dimensions, and this cannot be achieved for all constituencies on all occasions. 

 

Finally, I am sure that if we are to consider using a quota system for nominees, this must be debated and decided upon as a discrete, substantive item and not assumed or imposed by an indirect means.

 

Good fortune in your deliberations.  Best regards,  Graham

 

Dr. Graham W. Winch

Professor Emeritus in Business Analysis

University of Plymouth

 

 

Hi Deborah,

 

There are two reasons why the determination of a slate should be completed with some haste.

 

The first relates to central office operations. These are managed against a demanding timeline which is moving quickly to conference preparations. The slate put forward has been included the spring newsletter which has been collated with membership renewal notices and put into envelopes. These were scheduled to be mailed on Monday, and that has been postponed. The news, and the renewal notices, do lose some currency as time passes.

 

The second relates to the procedure for confirming the nomination slate as the nominees of record. To do this the slate needs to be announced before the end of March, so that individuals who choose to mount a campaign for any office will have time to do so. Should this happen later, so that people are not informed in a timely manner, then we would, I believe, need to revert to a formal vote by the entire society membership which is an expensive proposition.

 

              Bob Eberlein

 

 

Hello everyone,

 

Here are my points in favor of reconsidering the slate of candidates. 

 

Let me start by again emphasizing that reconsidering this slate is in no way intended to be a personal affront to the work of the nominating committee.  It is about stating what we want in the way of representation.  This is not a criticism of the nominating committee, but a clarification of needs and expectations.  It is clear from the communication by members of the nominating committee that they had intended there be a woman on the slate.  I perceive that what we are currently doing is supporting that intention.

 

As a result of our discussions, it is clear to me that we need to separate the issues of improving the nominating process in the future and making a decision about what we do now.  I will happily take as an action item from this meeting to work with a small group on the nominating process for the future.  Currently I want to focus my energy on what we decide about this slate right now.

 

1) Diversity as a strategic objective of the Policy Council:

The purpose of the Policy Council, as Jay so correctly states, is to make sure we are doing the best thing for the strength of the Society and the field.  We have previously agreed as a council that increasing the diversity of the Society is an extremely important component of its future success (without identifying any specific goals or quotas).  We have also agreed (and it is stated in the charge of the nominating committee) that we want the Policy Council itself to be diverse.

 

Because I also put my trust in the nominating committee to find well-qualified candidates, I have not questioned the qualifications of the candidates they have proposed – even though I do not know three of the four PC member candidates.  I have equal confidence that the committee can also find qualified women candidates, as I know they exist.  I want to emphasize that we do not need to find “better qualified” women candidates, only “equally qualified” women candidates.  As I understand that most if not all of the three I don’t know are recent PhD graduates, this should be very doable.

 

I agree with Jim and the nominating committee that there are several diversity dimensions we want considered when developing a slate.  I do not agree that they must necessarily “compete” with each other.  I think it is very important and doable to find ways to integrate our diversity needs.  Jim’s email listed a number of dimensions that we have previously discussed as important: geographic region, gender, age, professional affiliation (academic, practitioner, student), MIT/non-MIT.  When developing a slate, we are not just looking at the diversity of the slate standing alone, but at how that slate impacts the diversity of the entire Policy Council.  Therefore, if the intent is to balance the Policy Council along these dimensions, that is an easier charge than balancing the slate along them.

 

2) Leadership in gender representation should be our aim for the Policy Council:

While it may be true that the representation of women on the Policy Council is not out of balance with the current representation in the Society, I thought we all agreed that the current representation of 12-15% women in the Society was abysmal.  The only similar field that had a lower showing was engineering – and that field has many strategic initiatives in place to increase the number of women in the field.  Therefore, the representation of women on the Policy Council is out of balance with our expressed intentions: to increase the percentage representation of women in the Society.

 

How does representation on the Policy Council drive representation in the Society or field?  Several ways.  Women on the Policy Council:

 

-        Act as role models to other women in the field or considering the field.

-        Ensure a women’s voice in Policy Council decisions.  Women of the Society (current and potential) have some different needs.

-        Provide access to different social networks that could inform and improve our efforts in increasing the strength of the Council and the Society and the field.

 

While it is easy to say, “Let’s forget about changing the slate now, and fix it later”, I think we have to consider this carefully.  As I explained in a previous message “fixing it later” requires even more female candidates be brought on next year, or the year after.  This may be easier said than done.  An even more important consideration is what else will be lost in the meantime – the role models, the voice, the social networks, and the very visible demonstration of our commitment to increasing the representation of women in our field.  This has more potential negative impact on the field than I am willing to accept.

 

3) Possible solutions:

Three people have suggested we add one or two more candidates to the slate that has been currently proposed.  Yet, I have not read any reactions to that solution.  It certainly seems like the easiest and least painful solution (no one has to go back to a current candidate with an unpleasant job). 

 

On the other hand, I could imagine people feeling that increasing the size of the Policy Council is not something we would do without a discussion of its own.  We are already a big body, struggling to find the best ways to work together over great distances.  Additionally there may be concern about setting precedence – add one here, add one there, until suddenly we are truly unwieldy.

 

If we chose to consider this solution, let’s make it a clear proposal.  I suggest the following: This would be a one-time act to add women to the slate.  The number of total candidates on the slate should be smaller next year by the number of women we add, to bring the total Council number back to 25.  We should add at least one woman to keep the representation on the Council from declining.

 

If we don’t like this solution, then voting down the current slate and asking the nominating committee to propose an adjusted slate is the alternative.

 

4) The delay/lateness of this discussion:

Finally, I have to protest the complaints that this discussion is coming “too late” in the process to be considered.  Several people have indicated (five to me alone) that they find the e-meeting format we have been using difficult to use, for a variety of reasons, and because of this they did not participate.  As a result of this lack of participation, Bob E. extended the meeting with the explicit intent to encourage more discussion.  As a direct result of this extension and plea for more participation, we are having more discussion – important discussion.  After all that, it seems a bit strange to me to complain that we are discussing this too late.  We have had usability issues that have kept the smart and talented members of our Policy Council and Society from expressing their voices until now.  We have (with a little glitch in the middle due to uncertainly around correct procedure) followed correct meeting procedure.  And this is an important decision.  I don’t think we are doing anything that deserves complaint.

 

I strongly believe that all of these points warrant our reconsideration of the slate of candidates.

 

Best regards,

 

Deborah Campbell

VP Member Services

Chair, Diversity Committee

 

 

This made me smile when I read it today, so I wanted to pass along a smile to you!

 

MARCH 8 - International Women's Day

Millennium Development Goal #3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women =========================================================================

In today's globalised world, women are united -- despite cultural, language, ethnic, political, economic or religious differences -- in their efforts to achieve equality, peace and development. March 8 commemorates the great strides women have made, but also reminds us that everyone must continue in their endeavours to reach those elusive goals.

 

Best regards,

Deborah

Dear colleagues,
I have been following the discussion of diversity issues and the slate of candidates with great interest since Deb Campbell's post a week ago. For technical and other reasons I have not been able to contribute to the conversation until now.

I would like to echo Deb's well-articulated points about why it is desirable to have women on the Policy Council, and to maintain the current representation of women on the Council. As she notes, having a significant representation of women on the Policy Council clearly promotes the professional goals of the society (not diversity for its own sake). Women on the council provide role models for women in or considering the field, represent women's perspectives and needs in PC decisions, and connect the Council and Society to different social networks. These are benefits for the conduct and long-term sustainability of the Society, not just the demographic profile of the PC. As a woman who started my career in engineering in the early 1980s, I have many personal stories of how difficult it can be to succeed in a male-dominated field. While I have never felt any discrimination in the system dynamics field or Society, (in fact, I have felt nothing but encouragement from everyone I have met) I know how intimidating it can be to not have female role models. I think I was fortunate to enter this field after I had gained some measure of professional confidence in general. At a time when the gender balance in most universities (in the U.S. at least) is shifting to more than 50% female students, it seems even more important to do what we can to facilitate a higher participation of women in our field. Maintaining a significant female representation on the Policy Council seems a critical step.

A number of people have proposed adding women to the current slate instead of recalling an invitation. This seems like a sensible solution, particularly if we follow Deb's suggestion that it be a one-time addition and that we decrease the total slate next time to maintain the Council at its current size. Since I am not sure how this would happen, I will vote yes to reconsider the slate, and hope that a new slate can be constituted with the currently proposed members plus at least one woman.

-- Krys Stave

 

Hi Everyone,

 

Voting is now open on the motion:

 

Moved by Ginny Wiley and Seconded by Deborah Campbell: I would like to move to reconsider the motion to approve the slate of officers proposed by the nominating committee.

 

If this motion passes the original motion will be voted on again. If it does not pass the original motion will stand.

 

To vote send an email with your name and the word YES, NO or ABSTAIN. To the Society Offices < >. You can also simply reply all to this message and not approve your message to the list. Votes should not be sent to this list.

 

Voting Closes at Midnight Albany Time on Saturday, March 10.

 

The voting officers and PC members are listed below.

 

               Bob Eberlein, on behalf of Qifan Wang

 

 

As of 9:30 AM Albany time: 3 abstain; 7 yes; 5 no; 10 NO VOTE

 

Voting closes at midnight Albany time on March 10, 2007

 

ABSTAIN  Past President: Michael J. Radzicki (2007)

ABSTAIN  President Elect: Jim Lyneis (2007)

ABSTAIN  Policy Council (2005-2007) Henk Akkermans

YES  Secretary: David Packer (2007 - 2008)

YES  Vice President - Publications: Deborah Lines Andersen (2006-2008)

YES  Vice President - Chapter Activities: Ginny Wiley (2005-2007)

YES  Vice President - Member Services: Deborah Campbell (2006-2008)

YES  System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Brian C. Dangerfield

YES  Policy Council (2006-2008) Krys Stave

YES  Policy Council (2007-2009) Khaled Wahba

NO  Vice President - E-Presence: Robert L. Eberlein (2006-2008)

NO  Founding President: Jay W. Forrester

NO  Policy Council (2005-2007) Scott Johnson

NO  Policy Council (2005-2007) Jim Thompson

NO  Policy Council (2007-2009) Warren Tignor

 

President: Qifan Wang (2007)

Vice President - Finance: David Andersen (2005-2007)

Vice President At Large: Joel Rahn (2007-2009)

Vice President - Meetings: Andreas Groessler (2007-2009)

Policy Council (2005-2007) Brad Morrison

Policy Council (2006-2008) Gloria Prez Salazar

Policy Council (2006-2008) Santanu Roy

Policy Council (2006-2008) Ali Kerem Saysel

Policy Council (2007-2009) RenAn Jia

MAILBOX IS FULL Policy Council (2007-2009) Ozge Pala

 

 

A YES vote could forestall the lengthy and expensive nomination-by-petition process provided by Policy 7 (see Addendum below) and allow the Policy Council to confirm its leadership on the issues of diversity, specifically gender balance.

In light of the current vigorous discussion of the composition of the slate of PC member nominations, the reaction to a NO vote could (some might say should) generate such a petition. The Nominations Committee has done exactly what the PC has asked of it and its work has been ratified by a unanimous vote of the large majority of PC members who voted on this issue. The discussion has clearly progressed to a point where the subtle brilliance of the 'recall' motion to reconsider the slate is the last chance for the PC to deal expeditiously with the real issue of at least maintaining its gender representation.

The means to minimize the probability of a petition have already been mentioned: a mandate from the Council to the Nomination Committee to add a qualified woman to the slate within a reasonably brief time period, perhaps two weeks. If this should prove impossible, then recourse to a petition is still available. In either case, a petition to nominate a suitable (i.e, ready, willing and able) female candidate would lead to an increase in workload for the Society's office staff just prior to the Conference.

For those who are less averse to the risk of inspiring one (or more?) petitions for the four PC member seats with their added delays and staff effort, a NO vote might create a stock of suitable  female candidates for future nominations. I have seen some but not overwhelming evidence of that in the current discussion. For this reason, I am voting YES on the motion to reconsider the slate.

Joel Rahn

ADDENDUM
N.B. These two versions of  the part of Policy 7 relevant to this message were culled from the Society website via the Governance link. The first version appears to be the most recent; the second version gives some idea of the delays involved in the petition process.

>From webpage:   http://www.systemdynamics.org/SDS%20PC%20Web/policy2.htm

The President shall publish all nominations made by the Nominating Committee in a letter to members mailed during the first quarter of the fiscal year.

Members may submit other nominations for these offices and positions, provided that 1) each such nomination is accompanied by a petition signed by twenty-five members in good standing or ten percent of the total membership, whichever is less, 2) each nominee is a member in good standing, 3) written evidence is submitted to the effect that each nominee has agreed to stand for election, and 4) such nominations reach the Secretary within five weeks after publication of nominations received from the Nominating Committee.

Section 4. Balloting. If no nominations are received by the Policy Council from the membership at large, the slate of candidates submitted by the Nominating Committee and approved by the Council will be deemed elected. If the Council has received any nominations from the membership at large, the Society business office will mail to all members a ballot, plus a brief biographical sketch of each nominee, during the second quarter of the fiscal year. To be counted, ballots must reach the Society business office on or before June 30th. The Secretary will arrange to count the ballots after the close of the elections. A plurality is sufficient to elect.


>From webpage:    http://www.systemdynamics.org/SDS%20PC%20Web/policies.htm#pol

The Secretary shall publish all nominations made by the Nominating Committee in a journal or a letter to members mailed on or before February 15th.

Members may submit other nominations for these offices and positions, provided that 1) each such nomination is accompanied by a petition signed by twenty-five members in good standing or ten percent of the total membership, whichever is less, 2) each nominee is a member in good standing, 3) written evidence is submitted to the effect that each nominee has agreed to stand for election, and 4) such nominations reach the Secretary within five weeks after publication of nominations received from the Nominating Committee.

Section 4. Balloting. On or before April 21st, the business office will mail to all members a ballot plus a brief biographical sketch of each nominee. To be counted, ballots must reach the business office on or before June 20th. The Secretary will arrange to count the ballots after the close of the elections, but prior to June 25th. A plurality is sufficient to elect.

 

As of midnight Albany time, March 10, 2007:

9 yes; 6 no; 3 abstain; 7 did not vote

 

ABSTAIN  Past President: Michael J. Radzicki (2007)

ABSTAIN  President Elect: Jim Lyneis (2007)

ABSTAIN  Policy Council (2005-2007) Henk Akkermans

YES  Secretary: David Packer (2007 - 2008)

YES  Vice President - Publications: Deborah Lines Andersen (2006-2008)

YES  Vice President - Chapter Activities: Ginny Wiley (2005-2007)

YES  Vice President - Member Services: Deborah Campbell (2006-2008)

YES  System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Brian C. Dangerfield

YES  Policy Council (2006-2008) Krys Stave

YES  Policy Council (2007-2009) Khaled Wahba

YES  Vice President At Large: Joel Rahn (2007-2009)

YES  Policy Council (2006-2008) Gloria Perez Salazar

NO  Vice President - E-Presence: Robert L. Eberlein (2006-2008)

NO  Founding President: Jay W. Forrester

NO  Policy Council (2005-2007) Scott Johnson

NO  Policy Council (2005-2007) Jim Thompson

NO  Policy Council (2007-2009) Warren Tignor

NO  Policy Council (2005-2007) Brad Morrison

 

President: Qifan Wang (2007)

Vice President - Finance: David Andersen (2005-2007)

Vice President - Meetings: Andreas Groessler (2007-2009)

Policy Council (2006-2008) Santanu Roy

Policy Council (2006-2008) Ali Kerem Saysel

Policy Council (2007-2009) RenAn Jia

LATE - ABSTAIN Policy Council (2007-2009) Ozge Pala

 

 

The motion to reconsider has carried and the following motion is before the Policy Council:

 

Moved by Michael Radzicki and seconded by Robert Eberlein

 

On behalf of the Nominating Committee I move that the following slate of

candidates for officer and PC member posts (to take office in 2008) be

accepted by the Policy Council: President-Elect: Erling Moxnes (Norway),

Vice President-Finance: David Andersen (USA), Vice President-Chapter

Activities: Tim Hazlett (Australia), POLICY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Enzo Bivona

(Italy), Lars Weber (Germany), Imrana Umar (Africa), Burak Guneralp (Turkey)

 

Please email your vote YES, NO or ABSTAIN to

 

 

Voting will remain open till Midnight March 14 albany time.

 

 

        Bob Eberlein for Qifan Wang

 

 

Hi all....seems there needs to be time for discussion of this motion before voting, as with any motion.   Also, the Nominating Committee could, if it chose to, withdraw this motion and replace it with another, with a different slate.  I personally would encourage the Nominating Committee to consider doing this, given the issues that have been raised.  We also need to understand what happens if the motion is defeated so we know the implications of our vote.  I just want this to be open and clear to all. 
Dave  Packer

 

 

Hi all,

 

I also agree with Dave on this.

Given the ‘extensive and divided’ discussion on this, I would also recommend that the Nominating Committee withdraw this motion and replace it (immediately) with another motion containing exactly the same candidates recommended previously, but also add one or two of the excellent female representatives that I am sure would be happy to serve on SDS Policy Council.

 

Apart from the ‘imbalance & pipeline issues’ well discussed in earlier emails, we surely want our 50th anniversary celebrations to go as well as possible, and to highlight positive changes that may occur for SD & SDS in the next 50 years??

 

All the best,

Bob

 

Dr Bob Cavana

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Many policies determine the long-term quality, utility, and health of our field. If the Society elites can manage to invest as much effort and thought into other issues as they have into the issue of gender and the Policy Council, I foresee great days ahead.

 

I am not a member of the Policy Council, therefore I have no voting privileges. Nonetheless I have been getting many e-mails about the consideration, and reconsideration, and reconsideration of the reconsideration of the vote for our officers.

 

All that e-mail prompts this one contribution.

 

It is important to have a diverse and representative set of people govern the society. But probably the best way to achieve that is to impress the goal of diversity on the nominating committee, and then let them do their work.

 

If we wish to emphasize the role of women, or Europeans, or historians, or students, or whatever, in our Society, there are MANY ways to do this apart from making sure they are formal members of the Policy Council. Policies and procedures that govern the identify (read gender, discipline, country of origin, age, skin color, modeling experience, social status, intellect, or whatever trait you wish to emphasize and encourage) of authors in the Journal, or speakers in the annual meeting, or conference participants, or students in our training programs, or recipients of our awards, or non-member contributors to the Policy Council deliberations all can be used for achieving the same worthwhile goals that seem to underlie the effort to get more women on the Policy Council. And those policies will be more effective than merely setting Policy Council quotas.

 

If we simply increase the number of women on the Policy Council and do not change our other policies, the worthwhile goals of those seeking greater gender equality will not be achieved, no matter how many women eventually sit on the Council.

 

Do not infer from the above that I am sexist or that I am unappreciative of the efforts by those who feel the Society will be well served by this current debate. I am neither. But I am a systems analyst, and it bothers me to observe all the energy invested in one policy lever while all the others are ignored.

 

Cordially,

 

Dennis Meadows

 

 

If an amendment to the motion being reconsidered is presented now, it would have to be voted on before the original motion, is that right? And any two members can move and second a pertinent motion, the Nominating Committee is not obliged or required to do so.

 

Evidently the electronic process must be a little different from the usual meeting procedure, so the Committee's motion and time limit is necessary to keep the process moving but I don't think it is intended by anyone to limit debate.

 

If I am correct, what we need now are two members to propose and second an amended slate with one additional nomination for PC member from among the qualified female membership. If it is not possible to do this immediately, for example for lack of time to find an able candidate who is ready to accept the nomination, then the only way out, given the current discussion,  is to vote NO and take the (we hope) brief time to confirm such a nomination.

 

Joel Rahn

 

 

Dear Policy Council Members,

 

Qifan Wang is traveling and not able to access email.  Therefore, as President Elect, I understand that I am officially in charge of making any procedural rulings.

 

At this point, the motion to reconsider the Nominating Committee Slate has carried.  According to Robert's rules, revoting should take place immediately after the motion to reconsider, without further discussion.  As a result, the motion to revote was moved by Mike Radzicki and seconded by Robert Eberlein on Monday March 12, 2007, at 1:11pm.  Technically, during a vote the only thing that can be done is to vote.  While in this electronic format I do not propose to cut off further discussion, I do intend to let the vote precede until its scheduled completion time of Midnight, March 14, 2007, Eastern Daylight Time.

 

Once the revote is completed, we can take additional motions.  Regardless of how the revote comes out, one such motion might be to consider adding people to the Policy Council.  I would suggest that if such a motion is proposed, it be along the lines of charging the Nominating Committee with studying the issue and making a recommendation at the face-to-face summer meeting.  In addition to considering specific candidates, we (Nominating Committee and PC) would need to consider such issues as:  how many people to add (1 or 2)?  Will this be a one-time temporary addition or would the size of the council be increased?  If the addition is temporary, how and when would we return to the normal size (after 1 year or 3)?  If we are to increase the size of the PC, by how much and over what time period (e.g., we could add one member a year for 4 years, thereby increasing the size to 29 members)?  And so on.  I do think that while on the surface adding to the slate seems like an easy solution, it does raise other issues that should be carefully considered before charging ahead.  The slate of candidates does not take effect until January 2009.  We have plenty of time to carefully consider these issues before the nominees take office.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Jim Lyneis

 

 

If I may, I would like to contribute a few good names for consideration for this and/or future slates, in addition to the ones already mentioned during this discussion:

 

Helen Allison (Australia), PhD Murdoch University

Laura Black (Montana, USA), PhD MIT

Andjelka Kelic (New Mexico, USA), PhD MIT

Birgit Kopainsky (Switzerland), PhD Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Tsuey-Ping Lee (Taiwan), PhD University at Albany

Agata Sawicka (Norway), PhD Agatha University College

Silvia Ulli-Beer (Switzerland), PhD University of St. Gallen

 

I would add that there are in the Society plenty well qualified PhD graduates from diverse background, race, geographic representation, gender, etc. But most importantly, the chosen few that are to be in the Council must be enthusiastic and work provide a meaningful contribution.

 

Aldo Zagonel

Assistant VP - Chapter Activities

 

 

Here are a few more suggestions:

Honggang Xu (China)
Maria Aracil (Spain)
Anna Babette Wills (Netherlands)
Sauwakon Ratanawijitrasin (Thailad)
Orasa Suksawang (Thailand)

Khalid Saeed

 

 

Dear Members of the Policy Council,

 

As the member of the Policy Council who originally seconded Deborah Campbell's request to extend the discussion on the vote to approve the nominating committee's slate I have voted "YES" in the current ballot.  I have remained silent on all the discussions since I made the second. However, at this time I am making my personal vote a matter of public record and I urge members of the Policy Council to join me in voting "YES" for the following reasons:

 

(1) When I seconded Deborah Campbell's motion to extend the discussion, I felt that she was raising important issues that we all need to reflect on and discuss.  I still feel that way.  We have important issues that we still need to address and resolve as a Policy Council.  However, I believe that we are now embroiled in a legalistic hassle involving Robert's Rules of Order which is NOT giving us the needed discussion (from which will come agreement) and seems to be leading us in a divisive direction.

 

(2)  I think that the issue has been well vetted in this public forum. And I trust that as we move forward together, one of the several workable solutions placed on the table will be selected and implemented by the Policy Council and its nominating committees.  I hope that in addressing how to become an inclusive Society our efforts will move beyond the nominating committee.

 

(3) I believe that a vote of "NO" at this point in time will just lead to additional legalistic moves and counter moves and it will become increasingly difficult to move forward on this issue at all.  We risk becoming seriously divided over issues that we probably do not strongly disagree on.  If we vote "YES", we will have a slate that meets our needs to inform the membership of Policy Council candidates in a timely manner and we will also have ample opportunities to amend it later.  If we vote "NO" we will not have a slate and do not have a clear pathway forward (per Jim Lyneis's message below) to resolve the impasse in a timely manner.

 

(4)  I am willing to trust the good will and intentions of all those involved in these discussions over the past days and weeks to pull together to come up with common solutions that will work well.  I am sure that all of the issues out on the table can and will be resolved over time and I believe that a vote of "YES" on the current ballot is the best and least divisive way to reach these resolutions.

 

I apologize if my attempts to promote additional discussion have inadvertently led us in a divisive direction.  My intention was to focus attention on an important set of issues involving open discussion, not to get us involved in a number of potentially divisive votes.

 

In order to vote "YES" on the current ballot, you do not need to visit the Policy Council's website.  Rather, you need only reply to Roberta Spencer at

 

 

David Anderson

 

 

As of 8:20 PM Albany time, on Tuesday March 13, 2007 voting status: 1 abstain; 7 yes; 6 no; 11 did not vote

 

Voting will remain open till Midnight March 14 Albany time.

 

ABSTAIN  Policy Council (2006-2008) Santanu Roy

YES  Past President: Michael J. Radzicki (2007)

YES  Vice President - Publications: Deborah Lines Andersen (2006-2008)

YES  Vice President - E-Presence: Robert L. Eberlein (2006-2008)

YES  Founding President: Jay W. Forrester

YES  Policy Council (2005-2007) Jim Thompson

YES  Policy Council (2007-2009) Warren Tignor

YES  Vice President - Finance: David Andersen (2005-2007)

NO  Vice President - Member Services: Deborah Campbell (2006-2008)

NO  System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Brian C. Dangerfield

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Krys Stave

NO  Vice President At Large: Joel Rahn (2007-2009)

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Gloria Perez Salazar

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Ali Kerem Saysel

 

President Elect: Jim Lyneis (2007)

Policy Council (2005-2007) Henk Akkermans

Secretary: David Packer (2007 - 2008)

Vice President - Chapter Activities: Ginny Wiley (2005-2007)

Policy Council (2007-2009) Khaled Wahba

Policy Council (2005-2007) Scott Johnson

Policy Council (2005-2007) Brad Morrison

President: Qifan Wang (2007)

Vice President - Meetings: Andreas Groessler (2007-2009)

Policy Council (2007-2009) RenAn Jia

Policy Council (2007-2009) Ozge Pala

 

 

 

As of Midnight Albany time, on Wednesday March 14, 2007 voting results: 1 abstain; 13 yes; 8 no; 3 did not vote

 

ABSTAIN  Policy Council (2006-2008) Santanu Roy

YES Past President: Michael J. Radzicki (2007)

YES Vice President - Publications: Deborah Lines Andersen (2006-2008)

YES Vice President - E-Presence: Robert L. Eberlein (2006-2008)

YES Founding President: Jay W. Forrester

YES Policy Council (2005-2007) Jim Thompson

YES Policy Council (2007-2009) Warren Tignor

YES Vice President - Finance: David Andersen (2005-2007)

YES President Elect: Jim Lyneis (2007)

YES Vice President - Meetings: Andreas Groessler (2007-2009)

YES Policy Council (2007-2009) Ozge Pala

YES Policy Council (2005-2007) Henk Akkermans

YES Policy Council (2005-2007) Scott Johnson

YES Policy Council (2005-2007) Brad Morrison

NO  Vice President - Member Services: Deborah Campbell (2006-2008)

NO  System Dynamics Review Executive Editor: Brian C. Dangerfield

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Krys Stave

NO  Vice President At Large: Joel Rahn (2007-2009)

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Gloria Perez Salazar

NO  Policy Council (2006-2008) Ali Kerem Saysel

NO  Secretary: David Packer (2007 - 2008)

NO  Vice President - Chapter Activities: Ginny Wiley (2005-2007)

 

Policy Council (2007-2009) Khaled Wahba

President: Qifan Wang (2007)

Policy Council (2007-2009) RenAn Jia

 

 

Dear colleagues,

As of now, the slate of candidates originally proposed has been voted in.  Based on the discussion surrounding the slate, and on the votes to reconsider the original slate, there appears to be strong support for, at a minimum, maintaining gender diversity on the Policy Council.  There also appears to be good support for ensuring such diversity by nominating a woman in addition to the original slate.  For reasons related to notification of the membership required in the by-laws, it is important that we announce the slate all at once rather than phase it.  Therefore such a candidate would have to be added before March 31.

Many good reasons were put forward for adding a woman to this current slate rather than waiting until next year, including: the need to fill the pipeline for future women officers, one woman rolling off the PC this year and two women rolling off the PC next year, the loss of additional women’s perspective and social networks for PC decisions and actions, and in honor of our 50th anniversary.

Since

1) our recent discussion points to many on the PC supporting the concept of more women on the Policy Council,
2) the suggestion of adding a woman to the current slate was made and supported by several,
3) discussion during the recent vote made it seem that a follow-on motion to this effect would be made, and finally,
4) a substantial list of well-qualified female candidates was put forward, (note that many of these potential candidates provide other aspects of diversity beyond just gender),

we propose the following motion.

Moved by Deborah Campbell and seconded by Krystyna Stave:

The Policy Council requests the nominating committee recommend a qualified woman to add to the slate by March 23rd.  This would be a one time addition to the Policy Council numbers with the slate of PC members being decreased by one next year to bring the total number of the Policy Council back to 25 at the completion of the term of this female member.


Following is the list of women put forward by active members of the Society that the Policy Council would encourage the nominating committee to include in their considerations:

Kim van Oorschot (Netherlands)
Susan Howick (Scotland)
Susanne Tepe (Australia)
Helen Allison (Australia), PhD Murdoch University
Laura Black (Montana, USA), PhD MIT
Andjelka Kelic (New Mexico, USA), PhD MIT

Birgit Kopainsky (Switzerland), PhD Swiss Federal Institute of Technology

Tsuey-Ping Lee (Taiwan), PhD University at Albany

Agata Sawicka (Norway), PhD Agder University College

Silvia Ulli-Beer (Switzerland), PhD University of St. Gallen

Honggang Xu (China)
Maria Aracil (Spain)
Anna Babette Wills (Netherlands)
Sauwakon Ratanawijitrasin (Thailad)
Orasa Suksawang (Thailand)

 

Best regards,

Deborah Campbell and Krys Stave

 

 

 

The composition of the Policy Council deserves due consideration and, in my view, the motion before us risks diminishing that important conversation.  The current approved slate does not put the Society at risk of a catastrophic error. 

 

If rules our permit, I would urge that this motion be withdrawn.  Absent withdrawal, I would urge the officers and Policy Council members to vote No on this motion and permit us all some time to carefully consider the nominating process.

Jim Thompson

 

 

hi all,

 

although i have been arguing strongly for adding 1 or 2 women to the Nominating Committees recommended/accepted slate of new members for Policy Council this year, i think Jim Thompson makes a good point here regarding withdrawing Deborah Campbell's motion at this stage. i think we are currently headed down a very 'divisive' path. perhaps the best course for SDS is to try and correct the 'gender' imbalance on Policy Council next year.

 

In the meantime let us follow Dennis Meadow's suggestion in his email dated 14 March 2007: "If we wish to emphasize the role of  women, or ..., in our Society, there are MANY ways to do this apart from making sure they are formal members of the Policy Council."

 

let us consider 'many' of the women summarised in Deborah's email below for other committees/activities etc related to SDS

 

For example, i am no longer on Policy Council but am involved in the following three areas related to SDS:

 

(1) a member of the Dana Meadows Student Paper Award [1 female, 5 or 6 males on committee]

(2) a managing editor of System Dynamics Review [2 females, nearly 30 males on editors etc list in SDR]

(3) chair of the Wiley Sponsored Members scheme to SDS. [4 males on current committee]

 

i would happily hand over any (or all !) of these roles to enthusiastic female members of SDS (who feel they have the appropriate backgrounds). naturally the final decisions would not be mine but the relevant boards, committees or Policy Council.

 

I am sure that there are many more committees/activities/chapter or SIG leadership positions or committees that female SDS members could fill over the next few months or years.

 

Deborah, may i suggest that you reconsider withdrawing your motion as Jim T. has suggested, and perhaps form a small group to see where some of the women you mention below can be placed (either in the near, medium or distant future) [as indicated by Dennis M.].

 

all the best,

Bob

 

A/Prof Bob Cavana

 

 

Dear colleagues,

 

Krys and I made the motion to amend the slate in an attempt to represent what we perceived were two groups of voices in the virtual room of this meeting:

 

For those who voted “yes” to reconsider and “no” to the slate, we perceived there was a desire to reconsider the slate and find a way to include a woman. 

 

For those who voted “yes” to reconsider and then voted “yes” to the slate making the assumption from the discussion that some attempt would be made to amend the slate before the end of the summer meeting, we perceived there was also a desire to amend the slate and include a woman.

 

For both these groups, and based on the amount of discussion about this option, a motion to add a woman to the slate seemed to be the logical final step in this process we’ve been following.

 

It appears, based on the silence of the last 24 hours, that these two groups, for whatever reasons, no longer wish to pursue this option.  We therefore withdraw the motion.

 

Withdrawing this motion does not indicate any change to our deep concern about the lack of a woman on the current slate.  We ask everyone to keep in mind as we move forward that the issue of diversity representation on the Policy Council is a stock and flow problem with some delay, and that an extra effort will be needed over the next couple of years to bring in additional women if we wish to return to or improve our current gender mix.

 

Sincerely,

Deborah and Krys

 

 

Dear Policy Council Members,

 

The vote for the slate of candidates put forth by the nominating committee has passed, and the motion to add a member to the Policy Council has been withdrawn.  In light of the discussion surrounding the vote, I would like to propose that a small group be formed to examine the nominating process and the size and composition of the Policy Council, with the purpose of presenting some recommendations to the Policy Council at this summer’s meeting.  Items to be considered include:  making sure our nominating process is consistent with the by-laws; building some institutional memory into the nominating committee; maintaining our efforts to increase diversity of all kinds on the Policy Council, particularly in the slates for the next couple of years; and achieving greater participation in Society business.  Deborah Campbell and Jim Lyneis have agreed to serve on this committee – if anyone else is interested, and/or if you have specific ideas to be considered, please let us know.

 

With this last item of business, I believe that the agenda for the Winter PC meeting has been completed.  Unless I hear an objection stating other business to be discussed, the meeting will be adjourned as of 48 hours from dissemination of this message.

 

I look forward to seeing you in person in Boston this summer.

 

Best regards,

 

Jim Lyneis

(Acting on behalf of Qifan Wang)