Difference between revisions of "Nominating Committee"
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
* [[Ed Is A Fascist]] | * [[Ed Is A Fascist]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Committees]] | ||
Latest revision as of 15:41, 10 January 2007
The Nominating Committee is an ordinary committee of the KGB. The purpose of NomCom is to put forth a full slate of officer nominations.
The original purpose of NomCom, when the KGB was much smaller than it is now, was to ensure that there would be at least one person nominated for every position. Because of the current size of the organization, some have posited that NomCom is obsolete, and indeed that it's detrimental to the democratic process to have an "official slate" (not to mention causing bitterness to those who were not officially nominated). Historically the NomCom slate was always elected in its entirety, which lends support to this view. However, this has not been the case in recent years, indicating that KGB members may actually have the ability to think for themselves, a proposition formerly thought laughable.
The Bylaws committee has spent substantial time debating NomCom. In the end, the committee decided to keep NomCom, and its reasons were multiple. First, though the organization is currently large enough that there is little worry about filling all of the officer positions, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Therefore, NomCom must be maintained against the inevitable waning of the KGB. Second, the official and secretive nature of NomCom kickstarts KGB's political season. It gets people interested and excited about elections, and this is a Good Thing. Third, NomCom spends substantial time considering who would be good at the various jobs, rather than simply selecting for populatiry and charisma. Thus, having NomCom make its suggestions is a good thing, in particular because its nominations often motivate qualified people to run who otherwise would not consider it. Finally, because the general body has defied NomCom so frequently in recent years, the concern about sullying the democratic process is diminished.
