Michael Koretzky, SPJ Regional Director for Region 3, sent five questions to all candidates running for board positions this September.
The results for all candidates who responded (including me) are featured in Michael’s blog post, “5 hard questions.”
Here are the questions, along with my answers:
(Feel free to answer with a simple Yes or No, or expound some)
1. Should 150 delegates or SPJ’s 7,500 members approve an updated Code of Ethics?
As you know, I favor adopting one member, one vote for SPJ decision-making, and I will be working on that in the coming year if elected. But OMOV requires a bylaws change. Even if it is adopted by the delegates at EIJ15, it wouldn’t be in effect until EIJ16. I don’t we want to wait that long for a revision to the Code of Ethics.
We have system in place for EIJ14 that provides for input from both groups. There will be a straw vote on the revised Code of Ethics draft on the ballot sent to all members. The delegates will have the benefit of that input before the discussion and vote on the Code in the final business session of the convention.
2. Should SPJ be renamed the Society for Professional Journalism and expand from a trade association to a advocacy group?
I personally favor the new name. I don’t know that it is the will of the members or the Board to make the change. There also will be a straw vote on this question on the EIJ14 ballot, and I look forward to hearing what the membership thinks. I think advocacy is an essential part of SPJ’s mission.
3. Do you agree with SPJ president David Cuillier? Did I libel SPJ on my SPJ blog when I criticized the Code of Ethics?
You are asking for a legal conclusion in this question, so I decline to answer.
4. Do you support allowing the entire board to vote on Chapters of the Year, instead of just two at-large directors?
You presented a well-reasoned request that we try a board-wide vote for chapters of the year for 2014. We are proceeding with that experiment. I think that was and is a good idea.
5. Do you support the board voting on committee chairs instead of the president simply appointing them?
Ever since Andy Schotz asked me this question early last month, I have said I have no problem with some form of confirmation process for board chairs. While there is no requirement (and imposing one would mean a bylaws amendment), incoming President Dana Neuts will be submitting her chair choices voluntarily to the board in September for their consideration.