Voting Procedure: Do We Have a Sense of Position of the International Members Attending the Conference?

Guest Blogger: David Beer, International Policing Advisor, Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

IACP 2011 in Chicago saw voting on the issue of a constitutional amendment proposing change to the IACP voting process. A “yes” vote favoring change would have freed the IACP Executive Committee to consider alternative voting methodologies, allowing members not attending the conference an opportunity to vote. A two-third majority–66 percent–was required for the amendment to pass. In the end, the “yes” vote amounted to more than 65 percent but fell short of the required 66 percent by less than one percentage point.

While we do not yet have analysis of the voting that might tell us how many international members voted (and how they voted), clearly a majority of all members who voted, voted in favor of change. The initiative fell short of the constitutionally required 66 percent, though, and the initiative fails. However, I cannot imagine that we will not hear more about this issue. The right to vote seems intricately linked to membership, whether one is able to travel to the conference or not.

What do you think?

The IACP looks forward to seeing you in San Diego at IACP 2012, September 29-October 3. To receive notifications when new blog entries are posted, click the “Follow” button on the upper left of your screen.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Global Policing. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Voting Procedure: Do We Have a Sense of Position of the International Members Attending the Conference?

  1. Bob Lausten says:

    What was the total vote count for/against??
    What % of eligible voters voted?

    • IACP Blog says:

      Hello Mr. Lausten. Regarding the question of whether or not to remove restrictions requiring voting take place at the IACP Annual Conference:
      –475 votes were cast
      –310 voted “yes” (65.26 percent)
      –165 voted “no” (34.74 percent)

      The two-thirds majority was not reached, so the proposed amendment failed.

Comments are closed.