Social audit 1989: Objective 3 – Elections

That the broadest possible range of members be encouraged to run for elected office, and that the elected leadership generally reflect the mix of membership in the co-op.

FlNDlNGS

1.   40% of all members report having run for office.    Groups  with  low percentages running are: members under 30 (17%); seniors (23%); lower income (21%); single parents (24%) and newer members (13%).

2.  42%  of  those  who  have  run  for  the  Board  report  being  elected. Groups that seem to be least successful at being elected to the Board were: members under thirty (15%); seniors (25% lower income (21%); single parents (25%); and newer members (10%).   

Male candidates have been more successful getting elected to the Board than female candidates (46% to 37%).  The most successful groups are the higher income members (69%) and those in the 30-39 age group (57%).

3.  31% of the membership earns less than $20M, but only 11% of current and former Board members earn less than $30M.  Likewise, only 17% of the membership earn more than $40M, but 31% of current and former Board members are in that higher income bracket.

4.      Once elected, the Board elects their officers.  Over the past four years, three of the four Presidents have been women; all four of the VicePresidents have been women; while three of the four Secretaries and Treasurers have been men.

5.      61% of all those who have run for a committee position report being elected.   Groups with the lower success rates are members under thirty (36%), lower income members (39%), and single parents (20%). In committee elections, as opposed to Board elections, seniors seem to be much more successful (63%) and women do better than men (61% to 50%). Again, the  most successful candidate group is the higher income members (82%).

6.      About half the people running for office (46%) reported they did so for the first time during their first two years of residency.

Of those who have not run, the most common reason cited was preference for other types of involvement (38%), followed by a lack of time (25%) and not feeling qualified (22%). The groups most likely to say they were “not qualified” were seniors (42%) and single parents (30%).

8.      59%  of  those who have held elected office called it a positive experience.

9.      28% of the membership stated they anticipated running for office in the future.  However, the levels were quite low for lower income members (16%), single parents (12%) and seniors (9%).

IMPLICATIONS

The percentage of members (40%) who report having run for elected office is encouraging.   

Some groups of members seem to be over represented (higher income), while other groups of members are less likely to run and have historically been less likely to win when they do run (seniors, single parents, lower income members).

These same under-represented groups also seem to be the ones who expressed the least interest in running for office in the future. 

Those members who could cite reasons for not running, 63% said either they preferred other ways of participating or they said there were personal or circumstantial issues.

RECOMMENDED ACTlONS

1. The  Board  should see that a nominations  or  election  committee  is formed so that procedural support and/or an educational evening is organized to assist those members who would like to run for office.

2. Candidates are  not required to give speeches before  the  members’ meeting, and that practice should be continued.  However, the Board should ensure that a process is developed so that information on all candidates is circulated to all members prior to an election.

To: Home page with table of contents for Social Audit 1989