IS IT GENIUS OR PATRONIZING DICTATORSHIP?

IS IT GENIUS OR PATRONIZING DICTATORSHIP?

I recently encountered either a bizarre or a brilliant twist to the procedure for election to a local board of directors for a local grocery cooperative. The Co-op annually elects three new members to the nine member Board of Directors. All Coop members (through a minimal membership fee) are asked to nominate fellow members to stand for election to the Board. After nominations are received a very interesting process takes place. I am not sure if it is a sign of genius or a sign of patronizing dictatorship. You can decide!

The current Board determines the skills, attributes and expertise that the board is seeking for the next year. A nominations committee then determines which of the nominated candidates best match the skills matrix that the board has identified. All of the nominees who meet the minimum qualifying criteria may be placed on the election ballot. It seems to me that this pre-screening of applicants flies in the face of democracy. The current incumbents determine which candidates might possibly be elected to their elite club, which should lead to cries of prejudice, bias and discrimination. Let the shareholders determine who will be elected, without this screening step. 

A brochure including the approved candidates is then sent to all Coop members complete with photos, credentials, mini CVs, statements of intent and interest and other personal information. This year there were eleven successful nominees. Then the final blow to democracy. Five of the nominees have the label, “Recommended” included in their profile. The Coop Board advises the membership which candidates they feel are most worthy of being elected. They obviously don’t think the membership is intelligent enough to make an informed decision on their own. I would suggest that the sham election be eliminated and the Board simply hand pick the most qualified candidates they feel that would best meet the needs of the Board! It is not democratic, but it sure saves a lot of time and money.

Then as I pondered the Coop approach; screen nominated candidates, assess final candidates against a required skills matrix, endorse your preferred candidates, inform the electorate and then the let the chips fall where they may. The members still make the final determination, but the deck has been stacked towards a desired outcome. Maybe this is genius!

If we used that procedure for the election of city counsellors, provincial MLAs or federal MPs would we have more qualified and skilled politicians? When I listen to some of the current elected government officials, I think the Coop approach might be a pretty good alternative. What do you think?