In a message dated 6/11/2005 10:42:50 AM Central Daylight Time, ELG440@xxxxxxx writes: Might not this come under the provision of, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" I am not sure changing things just to change them is a good idea. I know it sound good to say those nominated have an advantage, but I am not sure that is true. It might be a disadvantage. -------------------------------- I don't know that it is "broke," and I would also like to know if petitioned candidates win at about the same percentage that nominated ones do? I merely offered up the most democratic way to do it, without risking elections that have too few candidates. There is one thing though. If petitioned candidates win more often than nominated ones, I don't believe that would discount the advantage. It would suggest though, that the nominating committees are not picking candidates that membership want in office. I personally think that announcing nominated candidates before petitioned ones is an unfair advantage. The nominated candidate has more time to campaign unless the petitioned candidate's run has been planned ahead of time. I suppose making use of that time advantage is completely up to the candidate. I have seen some who wait quietly, and others who campaign so hard that all I want to do is tell them to take a break! Whether or not that time advantage is used, is not as important as the fact that it does exist. I believe there is one other advantage for nominated candidates. When that slate is shown, it feels like a slate that the GSDCA officers and board are recommending. Is it broke? I don't really know. I'm not even certain of how the nominating committee is chosen. I do know that the committee must be selected by either the president and approved by the board, or it is selected by the board? Either way, it gives the appearance of someone in charge, selecting the person who will nominate who will be in charge. I intend no accusation in this post. I merely do not see why petitions can't take precedence over the powers that be, at least when the job is to choose the powers that be. I do believe the same changes should be made for national judge selection though. As far as "change for the sake of change" ... I joined the GSDCA in 1979. Since then, I've seen a few titles added and the Review reformatted, but the only thing anyone has really tried to change has been the standard. Gail and Dania deserve praise for their efforts with the membership committee. In fact, everyone who works to grow the GSDCA gets a pat on the back from me. I merely think that they shouldn't have to work so hard at bringing people in and convincing people to stay. Their hard work has helped, but the club should sell itself. You may be impressed with the number of people who are members, but I think we should realize that the number is a drop in the bucket compared to how many people in this country are in love with the breed. Obviously it will take change to tap into that well, and I just happen to think that is a good goal. Tom Langlitz ============================================================================ POST is Copyrighted 2005. All material remains the property of the original author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE PROSECUTED. For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org ============================================================================