Nominating Committee Discussion August 17 th 2012 Pamela Snyder P.E – Society Nominating Chair Nora Lin – Leadership Election Task Force Chair

Agenda Election Manual Review and Approval Bylaws Amendments that Impact the Society Nominating Committee Increasing Society Knowledge of the Nominating Process Society Nominating Process Refresher Society Feedback Process

Election Manual Review and Approval

Key Changes National to Society Addition of Senate Secretary Tellers report no longer to the Senate Additional candidate interviews beyond PE at the discretion of the committee Midterm candidates reviewed at the discretion of the committee Petition Exception – how do we really enforce this? Competency Model Inclusion Details on the Collegiate Election Process - completeness

Next Steps All Appendices are examples Committee will make additional changes to appendices in coming weeks to incorporate Competency Model Nomination Form Candidate Statement Questions Feedback Request Questions Competency Model Need additional information on what makes some Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient and Expert so we can educate on how to give feedback and evaluate candidates.

Bylaws Amendments Impacting the Nominating Committee

Bylaws Amendments that Impact the Society Nominating Committee Overview 3 Bylaws Amendments known that will impact Nominating Committee 2 Nominating Committee taking forward 1 LETF taking forward All will require an update to Election Manual and appendices if adopted Nominating Committee supports all 3 and feels they can be integrated easily this FY is passed.

Bylaws Amendments that Impact the Society Nominating Committee Changes to Nom Com Chair Nominating Committee is bringing forward 1.Open requirements to include BOD, BOT, Senate Leadership, RG and Committee Chair in addition to Nom Com experience 2.Expand consecutive terms to 3 years vs 2 years today Changes to Petition Requirements LEFT is bringing forward 1.Bylaws amendment in progress to drop from at least 40 from each of 4 regions to no more than 60 from any one region or the international members

Bylaws Amendments that Impact the Society Nominating Committee Changes to Collegiate Director Evaluation and Selection Nominating Committee, Collegiate Senators, Collegiate Director and PE are bringing forward 1.Have the Nom Com evaluate vs committee assembled by PE 2.Have collegiate director elected by collegiate section presidents like Collegiate Senator, RCR, & RCCE 3.Keep Collegiate Director outside Petition process 4.Slate due March 1 st in line with collegiate leadership timing

Increase Society Knowledge of the Nominating Process

Exploring Presentation at A, B, J Effort being led by reps from A, B & J Working on Webinar in Fall during call for candidates Working with RGs and Region Nominating Committees to strength the pipeline Continue presentation at Region meetings Annual & Regional Conferences Exploring partnering with Region Nominating Committee at Region Conferences

Nominating Process Refresher

Society Nominating Process Process Overview Key Dates Help we need from the BOD What you should know if you are applying

Nominating Committee Process Overview What the Nominating Committee Does: Solicit candidates for the BOD, gather member feedback on candidates, assess candidates, and prepare a slate based on what’s best for SWE At the request of the Senate and BOT solicit candidates, gather member feedback, assess candidates and prepare a slate based on what’s best for SWE Provide feedback to candidates not slated and slated candidates

Nominating Committee Process Overview What the Nominating Committee Does Not Do: Assess electability of candidates Evaluate Collegiate Director Mentor candidates How we do it? Call for Nominations Nomination Form, Consent Form, Candidate Statement Society Feedback Committee Evaluation Interview candidates as needed

Key Dates Call for Nominations Sept typically ~3 weeks Solicit additional candidates if necessary October typically 2-3 weeks Candidate statements Oct-Nov typically ~3 weeks Society Feedback on Candidates Oct-Nov typically ~3 weeks Evaluate Candidates & Provide Feedback Nov - Jan Establish slate by Feb 1st

Help we need from BOD Encourage qualified members to apply for BOD, BOT and Senate Leadership Work with Committee Chairs, RGs and Senate leaders to identify and approach Nominate candidates you work with and/or mentor Encourage candidates to talk to the Nom Com Provide feedback on all candidates you know Mentor/Grow future leaders for the BOD, BOT and Senate Leadership Share information on what the Nom Com does

Things to know if you are applying Get information on the position you are applying for before you apply Prepare your SWE resume to help your nominator Nomination form is completed by the nominator not the candidate Pay attention to deadlines, page limits, etc Talk with members of the Nom Com It’s ok to let them know you are running, what you’ve done to prepare, and why you want the role

Feedback Process

Member feedback is one of the most important pieces of information used by the Nominating Committee Every member feedback comment is shared with the Nom Com anonymously and unedited It regularly is pulled from as the Nom Com discusses candidates Asking mentors to identify themselves in feedback this year. Who should provide feedback? All professional members that have direct experience with the candidates, even if just in 1 Competency

Feedback Process What makes good feedback Knowledge of the individual Experience working with them, not I met them once Context Where did it happen SWE – what role, work, etc Details on what they did What results they achieved How long ago – the more recent the better Balanced What are they doing well How can they continue to grow

Feedback Process Example of good feedback Sally has really grown in the Communication Competency in the last year. When she chaired the membership committee she shared expectations at the beginning of the year, scheduled regular meeting, and communicated effectively with the team via s. During calls she made sure all members participated and felt included. Her meeting at conference was well organized and gave us plenty of time to work business as a team and in small groups. The team rolled out the ABC membership program thanks to guidance and communication. Sally still can work on conflict resolution. When we had disagreements in the team they could go on for the majority of the call because she was unable to focus the team and keep us moving. Some of this was caused by a difficult team member that wouldn’t drop issues even after a decision was made. In the 2 nd half of the year she made significant improvements in managing this person. Example of poor feedback I saw Sally resent at Region Conference 8 years ago she did terrible.