Round 3 for One-Person-One-Vote?

SPJ’s national convention of delegates this year voted down by a narrow margin a proposal to allow a one-person-one-vote system that would have let all members in good standing cast their own ballots for national leaders.

The same issue was discussed and tabled two years ago. Will it be brought back to the convention floor next year in Washington, D.C.?

Member Carole McNall certainly hopes so. After reading a recap of the issue in the most recent edition of Quill magazine, she dropped me an e-mail with hopes that I would share it with you to generate more discussion about this matter.

Let the world know what you think, please.

Dear Ms. Tatum,

As one of the 40 percent of SPJ members not currently belonging to a chapter, I have to tell you I was frustrated and bewildered by the results of the convention's vote on the one person, one vote proposal.

I was frustrated because it appears that an organization to which I have belonged for (at this writing) more than 30 years still doesn't want to make me a fully participating member. I was bewildered because I saw nothing in the Quill story that would really explain why the proposal was turned down.

The quotes in the story all appear to refer to people who actually have chapters. For example, the story says delegates said members in their local chapters "weren't informed and didn't care about the election and that personal interaction at the convention was a vital part of making an informed vote."

Indeed? With all due respect to the speakers, can they really know how we in the unchaptered 40 percent would deal with an ability to vote? Realistically, some of us wouldn't take the time to become informed ... but some of us would. For that matter, can they really tell me that every delegate to the convention had enough "personal interaction" to make an informed vote?

It seems, in other words, that people generalized from their fellow chapter members to those of us without chapters, assumed we'd behave as the least motivated of those members and voted the proposal down because of that assumption. I encourage my journalism students to write based on solid information, not assumptions; I'm not likely to offer this particular SPJ action as a model for good behavior.

I suspect my own case may be typical -- I have not joined a chapter because the nearest available chapter is 75 miles away. In a western New York winter, that can be the traveling equivalent of a far longer journey; even in good weather, the drive time would guarantee I would be a chapter member in name only.

Mr. (Peter) Sussman's suggestion of a virtual chapter would seem not to eliminate any of those "member in name only" problems or, for that matter, the disadvantages he and others seem to see in the one person, one vote idea. If I'm not going to have enough "personal interaction" to cast an intelligent vote at the convention, how on earth am I going to know enough about fellow members of a virtual chapter to cast an intelligent vote on delegates to the convention?

Sadly, over 30 years I have become used to this feeling that I'm not quite a full SPJ member, except perhaps when I write my dues check. I guess the feeling will last a bit longer.

Carole McNall
Assistant Professor
Jandoli School of Journalism and Mass Communication