Two-Thirds: A Reasonable Supermajority

COMMENTS (2)
AIChE

As you may have heard, the AIChE Board of Directors is asking eligible Institute members to vote in favor of proposed changes to AIChE’s Constitution in a special election taking place through December 12. The Constitution changes are intended to modernize the Institute’s governance and management practices, while making the Institute more transparent and able to adapt to the changing needs of members. As AIChE Secretary and Chair of the Constitution and Bylaws Committee, this is a subject that matters a lot to me.

One of the most important, but less discussed, proposed amendments will actually preserve AIChE’s ability to have a constitution that can continue to be amended and relevant. This change will allow passage of future amendments with two-thirds of votes cast. Currently the Constitution has a much more onerous standard. 

Why lower the bar?

Sad to say, generally less than 20% of eligible members vote in the annual Board of Directors elections. Since 2002, only one time has 20% been exceeded and then only by one-tenth of one percent. That is important since the current constitution has a two-tiered formula that requires voting participation of at least 20% of eligible members. This means that a proposed amendment will fail if less than 20% vote. And if the 20% hurdle does happen to clear, then the amendment will pass only on approval of 75% of votes cast. 

If the current decline in voter participation in AIChE elections continues, it may be nearly impossible to make changes in the future when they are needed. Of course, we would like 100% participation, but, in today’s world, 20% appears to be a high first hurdle.

We’re in good company

AIChE is not alone in making such a change to its constitution. In doing so, our Board has joined the Boards of other non-profit, professional organizations in moving to the two-thirds standard. These organizations include:

  • American Chemical Society
  • American Society of Civil Engineers
  • American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • IEEE

and any number of other groups, including the National Society of Black Engineers, and the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers, have set the standard for approval of constitutional amendments at two-thirds of votes cast.

Still a high bar

Two thirds is still a very meaningful threshold—a solid super-majority. From time to time, we’ll be further discussing this and other elements of the proposed changes. We welcome your thoughtful questions and comments. And remember, every vote is an entry to win an Apple Watch!

Learn more about the election at http://www.aiche.org/amendments. You can vote here.

Comments

Member for

4 days 2 hours
Member ID
000000080147
First Name
Richard
Last Name
Skeirik

Submitted by Richard Skeirik on Tue, 10/25/2016 - 13:33

Permalink

Any careful look at these proposed amendments makes clear that we ordinary members can’t trust to board to act in our interest. The changes will allow the board to - dissolve the institute without member approval - further restrict nomination of members to run for office - redefine classes of membership - further change the constitution without any minimum member participation - change the election process without member agreement Moreover, you have not made any arguments for why the board requires these powers, nor have you even proposed new definitions or procedures which you plan to implement. If no changes are needed, then why the importance of board authority to make changes? The only exception here is the change from 100 nominations to 2% of voting membership (which is not defined, by the way), a six fold increase in the barrier. And what was the problem with the current level? If it’s that important, make your case to the membership, and we’ll approve the changes. You’ve not made your case, and I’ll be voting NO to all the changes. Richard Skeirik, PE, Sr Member

Member for

4 days 2 hours
Member ID
009900660081
First Name
Robert
Last Name
LeBrell

Submitted by Robert LeBrell on Wed, 10/26/2016 - 08:55

Permalink

The process of changing constitutional amendments is not supposed to be "streamlined." Any organizations constitution is intended to provide ongoing continuity and removing any quorum rules simultaneously lowers the need to keep members participating governance. If 20% is too high a bar than change the quorum but don't eliminate it.