Before I get into the rest of this post let me just say that running under a “TEAMWORK” banner does not imply, nor preclude, anyone from working with whomever is ultimately elected. To think so is silly. I believe that everyone running wants a stronger CC>CC.

Nominees and candidates have posted their endorsements and the posts have garnered little or no response. Then the posts scrolled off the boards in just a few days. “TEAMWORK” seems to have hit an emotional ‘hook’ in some
people, gotten their attention, which was one of the desired effects. (I mean, winning the election wouldn’t hurt either!) Most of the candidates have posted somewhere on the Web their platform and positions. A one word ‘bite’ is intended
to get people to look at this group of candidates. They still have to make a decision on each one individually, that is the system the Club runs under.

What follows is not a new crusade. It is just a discussion intended to evoke response and elicit opinions on the procedures our Club follows.

People cannot run under “slates”, perhaps this should be the real discussion.

The CC>CC is ‘just’ a club, and as such there are no major substantive issues that need to be addressed. True or False?

If you believe that there are no true issues that can impact the Club’s future direction then somebody’s got their head in the sand.<g>
Wake up sleeping flavor!!

If you recognize that there are platform caliber issues that can definitely impact the Club’s future direction, and you have an opinion on those issues, why wouldn’t you want to elect a group of officers who would consider putting those programs in place?

The current election protocol could easily elect 5 different people, with totally divergent opinions (on that key club changing issue) based on popularity alone. America? Yes! Good thing? Yes!

Electing a slate of candidates to accomplish the things you believe in. America? Yes! Good thing? Yes! Your personal take on the issues is probably what will determine for you that it is a good or bad thing.

Which is better? You could discuss it from now until forever.

Is it wrong for a group of candidates who agree on the majority of the issues to run alongside each other in an effort to accomplish more of what they believe in? Certainly not, this is still America.

Is it better than running purely as in independent and leaving the selection completely to visibility and popularity? I don’t think so,
but it is still America and you can choose that path for yourself if you prefer.

A key point here is that the club’s election protocol (until the popularity of the web) really did not allow, or provide a vehicle for debate on issues.

Look at the calendar for this election. The CC&TN Magazine advertising submission cut off was December 1st. The Club’s call for nominations ended with a postmark of November 30th. It is likely that a candidate would not be able to run an ad posting his position versus his/her opponent simply because they didn’t know who the other candidate(s) would be or their positions on
issues.

So, we have three or four people who find themselves being able to communicate well with each other, three or four people who find themselves capable of discussing and debating topics about which they clearly disagree, and yet they want to run alongside each other in hopes of winning. Winning to work together for the common interest of a stronger CC>CC.

This is not so bad. The better news is that we have, for all but one position, enough volunteer candidates for the voters to make a choice.