How do you feel about amending ACE's Constitution to allow for restructuring of the Executive Committee?

I'm divided on the issue, but ultimately will likely be voting against it.  Here's why:  I think both the current structure and the proposed new structure is problematic.  I've always felt that the Executive Committee consists of too many people who are not directly elected by the members.  This means that, should we elect both a President who tries to make misguided policy decisions and other officers who are either unaware of it, apathetic, lacking in courage, or (worst of all) in agreement, we could see an Executive Committee stacked with individuals who would essentially be "yes men" for the President.  This proposed restructuring does nothing to address or mitigate this possibility.  Indeed, with fewer positions to fill, and with potential managerial/department-head types filling those positions rather than people who are "hands-on" and passionate about the department they are overseeing, this potential for abuse becomes even more pronounced.  I recognize that the size of the EC may be a bit unwieldy for the challenges ACE faces today, but I would be more comfortable with this plan if one of the two following modifications to it were made:

1.  Make the six newly created/consolidated positions also directly elected by the membership, just like the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer are;

or

2.  Add two elected member-at-large positions to our Executive Committee.  The sole duty of these members-at-large would be to represent the views of the membership directly on the EC and to report back to the membership on the EC's decisions.  They would be our watchdogs making sure our EC is acting in our best interests.  These two elected officials could also be delegated tasks, but they would have the right to refuse if they feel as though it would bias them in any way or get in the way of their primary duties to represent and report for the average ACE member.  This would also make for a more balanced EC:  six directly elected officials (President, VP, Secretary, Treasurer, two members-at-large) one indirectly elected official (Immediate Past President), and six appointees (Member Services Director, Communications Director, Publications Director, History and Preservation Director, Region Director, and Events Director).

Without either of these two ideas implemented, the restructuring proposal does not, in my view, adequately insulate us from the prospect of a misguided and power-hungry President in the future.  Granted, I do not necessarily foresee this happening anytime soon, but (in my opinion) we had at least one such individual in ACE's past and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  For those reasons I must withhold my endorsement of the proposed revisions and modifications of Bylaws Two, Five, and Six.

How do you feel about amending ACE's Constitution to allow for Associate Memberships?

I have reservations, but I am tentatively in favor of this and am likely to vote to approve it.  My deepest concern is that this could one day lead to a situation where ACE News and/or RollerCoaster! magazine cease to be available in hard copy form as a right of membership to all non-Associate status members.  This could happen because, as the ratio of Associate members to non-Associate members goes up, the available budget for printing costs and postage for these publications decreases, potentially making them untenable going forward.  If the amendment passes and the slightest indicator of danger that this scenario may play out becomes evident in the future (whether that be a month, decade, or century from now), it must subsequently be repealed or modified to prevent the end of printed publications.  The death of ACE News and, especially, of RollerCoaster! magazine as hard copy publications would be tantamount to the death of ACE as the organization I know, love, and want to be the best it can for it's members.

What is your view on the Vice Presidency? Do you have any ambition to become ACE President in four years?

I and the other candidate for Vice President present were asked this question during the platform speeches at Coaster Con.  My view is that the Vice Presidency is a separately elected position for a reason.  Moreover, I have fought (and plan to continue to fight, if need be) to keep it that way.  The notion that the person serving as Vice President should just automatically be assumed to be the next ACE President (or frontrunner for that job) in two to four years doesn't gel well with me.  I would dare say that that point of view sends mixed messages...that is to say that often, a lot of the people bemoaning the fact that members don't want to run for positions in ACE are the same ones saying that there should be a smooth transition of power that automatically (or nearly automatically) elevates the Vice President to the Presidency at the end of the President's term limit.  All this succeeds in doing is creating one more office that people don't want to run for as they may feel obligated to serve for the next 12 years as Vice President, President, and Immediate Past President.  Some people can excel in a Vice Presidential capacity and proceed to become a less than ideal President (and the reverse is true, also).  I don't think such people should be pressured into running for and accepting the Presidency, only to be left feeling like they're letting the members and themselves down with the job they're doing, especially when someone who could do a better job but doesn't happen to be the most recent Vice President is available for the task.  I am sure that being a member of ACE's Executive Committee is a lot of hard work, but it shouldn't be so much work that the average ACE member can't handle it.  If it is, there's something wrong.

Indeed, any good democracy can handle a smooth transition of power to someone who was not involved with the previous administration of the applicable government.  Is ACE's democracy so broken that the club would just fall to pieces if a qualified candidate who had not served as Vice President or in another recent Executive Committee capacity ran and won the Presidency of the club?  I sure hope not.  If it is, ACE has much bigger problems than the possibility of electing an official who wants to serve for less than four (or eight or 12) years!

As for the future in regard to my plans, I find it a bit presumptuous to make solid long-term plans.  The past and the future are out of our control.  All we can control is what happens right now.  In the now, I want to be your Vice President in an effort to enact the changes to ACE's Constitution and Bylaws as outlined in my platform.  Will I be ready and inclined to run for President in four years?  I do not know.  If elected, will I be inclined to seek a second term as Vice President?  Again, I don't know.  I am a full time grad school student with a desire to use my talents and education to heal the world.  If the work load proves too cumbersome or the other Executive Committee members prove too obstructionist to my agenda for me to be able to accomplish the things I want to accomplish for the benefit of all ACE members, I may well choose to bow out in 2016.  In such an event I would wait until I'm out of school, my practice is up and running, and the political climate in ACE is more favorable to my goals before I would try to come back and finish what I'm attempting to start.  I cannot promise anyone ambition to serve beyond 2016.  I can promise that so long as I remain passionate about this hobby, ACE, and the rights of ACE's membership, I will not be silent on those matters that I consider important to our future.

In the event that I am elected and something unforeseen happens to (presumed) President-Elect Willard, I would be seeking help from ACE's membership, the other members of ACE's Executive Committee, and any past ACE Presidents willing to assist in guiding me through my duties until such time as the President can resume his duties or a new President can be elected.  I may be stubbornly passionate about many issues but at the same time, until I've made a firm decision on a matter, I prefer to lead by consensus.  That would be my most likely approach if ACE Presidential duties were thrust upon me in an unforeseen fashion.