I would favor a more formal nomination process for committee membership to reduce implicit bias.
I second Amalia's comment, although I believe ASE does put a call out for nominations!? Also, if a committee does not need to meet at ACS or SEW (ie Awards Committee) should that somehow be reflected better here?
Would there be value in this being more than a one-year commitment?
Following on from Aimee's comment... It's not clear to me what the longevity of an individual's membership would be. Does "One year renewal appointment ..." mean "One year renewable appointment ..."? Could a member be reappointed on a yearly basis indefinitely? How exactly does promotion from general membership to chair work? What is the expected total # of "general" members?
Thank you all for your wise comments! I conferred with the key author of the Charter and have the following thoughts and clarifications:
We don’t want this to be a call to membership when the success of this committee is really very much dependent on people going out there and working hard to get funding. While a lot of people say “yes I will do that," the only indication of success is if you actually have DONE that.
In terms of making the nominations more formal, we'll have the Chair of the committee send the Executive Committee a short list of people that did a “good” job on the committee or have potential (fund raising for other societies) and the Exec Committee can confirm.
The term of membership will remain a year but could be renewed indefinitely.
Vice Chair selected by the Chair in consultation with Executive Committee (similar to what's outlined in the Bylaws for the other standing committees.)
General membership expected to be 6 or less. But could be expanded based upon ability to raise funds from novel sources.
The committee meets in ACS and SEW.
Thank you everyone.
I would like to second Sue's comments.
The idea behind the way for choosing the co-chair is that we really get a lot of people that say they will get involved and help, but then they either don't do the work or they send a couple emails and that is it. the success here is really about working with industry and that takes a special skill , I think. Thus we really wanted selection for co-chair to be very much about a "proven" record of ability to do this unique job.
happy to discuss and entertain any other ideas.
Thanks for the clarifications Sue and Adnan! I agree with the document with the added details that Sue addressed.