Andrew Amelang
Chair
Sending out those three letters before convention resulted in a small wave of responses, which gave me the opportunity to respond to the responses. Almost all were positive, and the couple that gave some pushback were polite and reasonable. One result of that is I intend to do more writing this term, both more blogging and more email comms with our supporters. This first round was consistently positive, even if it ended on 'agree to disagree'.
The other result is that I wanted to share excerpts from one of the email exchanges--this one with Melina Baker, a former Treasurer for LPTexas. (She was serving back when I first joined SLEC in 2017.) I found her observations encouraging, and I hope you will too.
- - -
...I want to encourage you to pursue the idea of reducing SLEC.
In my short time in state leadership, one of the most frustrating things I found was trying to negotiate through big personalities and factions to do anything forward thinking and organizationally sound. It was daunting and - to be honest - getting ready for SLEC made me physically ill before most meetings, and that was a big reason I didn't run for Treasurer again. Looking back, I should have sucked it up and run because some of what I was doing needed more time and it wound up being scrapped by the next Treasurer.
In the time since, I've worked with boards and other oversight committees both professionally and as a volunteer more than ever before in my career and I've learned that it IS possible (and dare I say - FUN?) to have a functional, effective steering group!
I currently sit on one board of 15 and I report to another board of 12, each subdivided into specific areas (i.e. finance, academic, and development) based on the member's expertise or interest. The sub-committees hear the details of the particular topic and make recommendations to the board as a whole. The whole board, because we are small enough to be heard by one another, trusts the members of the sub-committees enough to NOT require every last detail of a topic, but can instead ask broader questions. I love this because it provides a multi-layered screening before ratification. The sub gets into the weeds with only 4-5 people, then the board filters at a big picture level.
The board where I volunteer (a small private college) has become much more effective since taking on the sub-committee approach. When I went on the board, the wolves were at the door and the school was about to go under, but I wanted to serve because I wanted to make sure it went down ethically and compassionately if it had to go down. Four years later, it's no longer a "when we fold", but a "we might just make it". The administration holds a lot of credit for this, but I believe part of that is because the already small board further broke itself down to specialty areas so that it could meet more readily (my committee meets monthly because the finances are so precarious), examine topics in more detail and make rapid decisions.
When I was active, I opposed a smaller SLEC and my reasoning was that the rural counties already were at a disadvantage and reducing the size would further reduce our voice in the party. That is still a concern, but as I read your email and with my experience in past years, I have to think that if SLEC continues at the size it is, there will be no party for us rurals to have a voice in. The reason big committees work is because they have large numbers behind them and they can prevail by simple overwhelm of the opponent. When you don't have those huge numbers, you have to be fast, accurate, and responsive. I think perhaps the answer to the problem is small SLEC which listens to special interest groups - like rural counties - which organize themselves ad hoc and they can request to be heard at SLEC meetings.
Anyway, I want to encourage you in pursuing this....
- - -
I asked her permission to share that, and in her response I got this:
- - -
I'll be happy for you to share my comments, even by name if it means anything, because I really think that once everyone gets in the swing of small SLEC, they will be amazed at how powerful the party as a whole can be.
- - -
We'll be talking more about subcommittees in due course, but I was already planning to take us in that direction, so it was encouraging for me to hear her reporting on how well that's been working for her and the boards she's on. Who else is game to work together to find out how powerful this party can be?
The other result is that I wanted to share excerpts from one of the email exchanges--this one with Melina Baker, a former Treasurer for LPTexas. (She was serving back when I first joined SLEC in 2017.) I found her observations encouraging, and I hope you will too.
- - -
...I want to encourage you to pursue the idea of reducing SLEC.
In my short time in state leadership, one of the most frustrating things I found was trying to negotiate through big personalities and factions to do anything forward thinking and organizationally sound. It was daunting and - to be honest - getting ready for SLEC made me physically ill before most meetings, and that was a big reason I didn't run for Treasurer again. Looking back, I should have sucked it up and run because some of what I was doing needed more time and it wound up being scrapped by the next Treasurer.
In the time since, I've worked with boards and other oversight committees both professionally and as a volunteer more than ever before in my career and I've learned that it IS possible (and dare I say - FUN?) to have a functional, effective steering group!
I currently sit on one board of 15 and I report to another board of 12, each subdivided into specific areas (i.e. finance, academic, and development) based on the member's expertise or interest. The sub-committees hear the details of the particular topic and make recommendations to the board as a whole. The whole board, because we are small enough to be heard by one another, trusts the members of the sub-committees enough to NOT require every last detail of a topic, but can instead ask broader questions. I love this because it provides a multi-layered screening before ratification. The sub gets into the weeds with only 4-5 people, then the board filters at a big picture level.
The board where I volunteer (a small private college) has become much more effective since taking on the sub-committee approach. When I went on the board, the wolves were at the door and the school was about to go under, but I wanted to serve because I wanted to make sure it went down ethically and compassionately if it had to go down. Four years later, it's no longer a "when we fold", but a "we might just make it". The administration holds a lot of credit for this, but I believe part of that is because the already small board further broke itself down to specialty areas so that it could meet more readily (my committee meets monthly because the finances are so precarious), examine topics in more detail and make rapid decisions.
When I was active, I opposed a smaller SLEC and my reasoning was that the rural counties already were at a disadvantage and reducing the size would further reduce our voice in the party. That is still a concern, but as I read your email and with my experience in past years, I have to think that if SLEC continues at the size it is, there will be no party for us rurals to have a voice in. The reason big committees work is because they have large numbers behind them and they can prevail by simple overwhelm of the opponent. When you don't have those huge numbers, you have to be fast, accurate, and responsive. I think perhaps the answer to the problem is small SLEC which listens to special interest groups - like rural counties - which organize themselves ad hoc and they can request to be heard at SLEC meetings.
Anyway, I want to encourage you in pursuing this....
- - -
I asked her permission to share that, and in her response I got this:
- - -
I'll be happy for you to share my comments, even by name if it means anything, because I really think that once everyone gets in the swing of small SLEC, they will be amazed at how powerful the party as a whole can be.
- - -
We'll be talking more about subcommittees in due course, but I was already planning to take us in that direction, so it was encouraging for me to hear her reporting on how well that's been working for her and the boards she's on. Who else is game to work together to find out how powerful this party can be?