Skip navigation

Our chapter constitution tells us that we should have elections the first week in December.  Unfortunately, we have a slightly unusual situation. Before this last semester, the ACM chapter was dead.  None of the staff had any idea of what was going on, and most students were unaware of its existence.

From what I understand, each year a new faculty adviser is appointed. Because of this change, I was actually able to get somewhere. Quite conveniently, Dr. Woodfield was actually interested in there being an active chapter. He had asked Kendell Clement to help out when I tracked him down.   Kendell, Scott Ruoti and I got most things in order.  We set up gaming nights and seminars, went to the ACM ICPC, and set up some chapter programming competitions.

We now have some regularity (weekly meetings), and people are reasonably familiar with how the chapter works.  We have talked about running elections since late November, but we hadn’t gotten around to it because no one took the time to figure out a good system.  One of the problems that we have had to deal with was our reluctance to rank ourselves; we have functioned somewhat like a triumvirate.

After some time, I decided to go the easy way and just build some submission forms with wufoo.  We are running elections in a two-stage process; nominations, and then elections.  This probably seems very logical, but we are in fact not following the election process outlined in our constitution.  This is somewhat humorous, given that we decided to run elections in part to bring ourselves into conformance with our constitution.

The results follow:

  • Chair: David Hilton
  • Vice-Chair: Kendell Clement
  • Secretary: Kent Otis
  • Treasurer: Peter Henderson

I was somewhat surprised in every category:

  1. The overwhelming percentage of votes for the Chair
  2. The degree of diversity in the votes for Vice-Chair (46%, 23%, 23%, 8%)
  3. The closeness of the race between Kent Otis and David Wilcox (A difference of one vote)
  4. The large percentage of votes for Peter (69%)
  5. Scott Ruoti’s relative lack of presence (He received 2 votes)

I talked with a member about why Scott did so poorly, and I gathered that he was viewed as responsible for our last programming contest, which wasn’t organized as well as the others we have had.  He also didn’t submit a picture to accompany the form, which may have had some significance with swing voters.

I’m looking forward to working with all of them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: