My preference would be for direct election of the Chair. I admit that this preference is informed by my experience with US presidential elections, etc., but I also believe that a lot of members, regardless of where they’re from, would like to have a say in who will be the primary face of the group for a couple of years.
Under this model, it’s conceivable that someone could be elected Chair who doesn’t have the support or endorsement of the other elected officers. This could make for an awkward working situation. However, under the alternative model where the Executive Committee elects the Chair from amongst themselves, it is possible that the Chair won’t have the support of all of the officers (assuming he or she is elected by a majority vote of the Committee)…also a potentially awkward working situation. Furthermore, the current constitution draft outlines only four electable officers (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary-Treasurer, and Communications Officer) plus a Local Meeting Organizer (one-year term) appointed by the Chair, but we really need five electable officers to make the “parliamentary” model work well (since an even number could lead to a deadlock vote for the Chair). So, do we split the duties of Secretary-Treasurer? Or is there another way to create a fifth electable office?
I would definitely like to hear other members’ opinions regarding which model is most likely to be successful.
