1

Appendix H

Special Committee on Elections Process

Internal After-Action Review – 2016 Nominating Committee Process

May 2, 2017

Introduction

At the direction of SIPOA Board President Ed Jones, a study group was tasked with

undertaking an internal after-action review of the 2012-2016 Nominating Committee

processes and experiences. This group included the following individuals who served on

nominating committees during that time period: Kathleen Buchman, Ellen Coughlin, Skip

Crane, Bob Fisk, Janet Gorski, and Greg Henry. Dennis Pescitelli, SIPOA board member

and chair of the 2017 Nominating Committee, chaired the group and prepared this report

with input and multiple reviews from participants.

The study group met on March 21 and 30, 2017 and collaborated in discussions that

provided consensual answers to the following questions:

1. What were expectations of the Nominating Committees (NCs) going into the

recruitment and selection process specified in SIPOA Bylaws §7.6?

a. Regarding ability to meet deadlines, were they met? If not, why?

b. Regarding ability to identify and slate candidates, were they met? If not,

why?

2. What were the key determinants of the recruiting process?

3. What were the key determinants of the selection process?

4. What are the most effective means for conveying background, interests, and

service objectives of candidates to property owners as informed voters?

5. Based on the foregoing, does SIPOA devote adequate resources to selection and

recruitment of appropriate candidates for Board service given Board requirements

for governing SIPOA business activities?

6. Based on lessons learned from an institutional perspective, what are the study

group’s recommendations for enhancing the Nominating Committee process?

The results of this study are intended for incorporation into the body of work being

accomplished by the Elections Process Special Committee whose co-chairs are Board

members Con Constandis and Phil Squire.

2

Ability to Meet Deadlines

For all years examined, NCs typically entered the process with high expectations to meet

deadlines specified in SIPOA Bylaws. Calendars of milestones were developed early in

deliberations, and all deadlines were met successfully.

Ability to Identify and Slate Candidates

For the 2015/16 election cycle, the NC successfully met its expectations for assembling a

generously sized group of applicants. In all, 16 applicants came forward: 11 for the Board

and 5 for the Nominating Committee.

In contrast, the 2016/17 NC also began this part of the process confident that a substantial

pool of prospective candidates would apply. However, as the process unfolded,

challenges in obtaining commitments led to a noteworthy divergence of reality from

expectations.

The members of the 2016 NC reported making personal recruiting contacts and overtures

to approximately 40 to 50 individuals regarding service on the Board and Nominating

Committee. Only 11 applications were received. NC applicants held steady at five

compared to 2015, but there was a substantial year-to-year reduction in Board applicants

from 11 to 6.

Members of the 2016 NC noted that the most frequently stated reasons used by recruited

individuals who declined to apply were the following, offered in approximately equal

numbers:

1. Perceived degradation in the tenor of Board meetings over the prior months

caused by the actions of one particular Board member. Individuals citing this

reason considered the Board member’s conduct during meetings excessively

antagonistic and sufficiently distasteful to void any consideration of service.

2. Unwillingness to compete in and possibly lose what they considered a “popularity

contest” in which the number of candidates slated by the NC is greater than

available openings. The NC could not and did not guarantee this outcome to any

recruit, with the result that these individuals declined to apply.

3. Inability to fulfill the time commitment associated with service on the Board

because of age or health concerns, or competing demands such as plans for

frequent and extended travel. Some of the individuals citing this reason noted that

they might become interested in future election cycles if these circumstances

changed.

3

No judgment is offered as to the validity of any or all of these reasons. However, they are

reported here to illustrate the hurdles faced by the NC in assembling a slate of qualified

candidates that had the potential to successfully meet selection criteria.

Summary tables of applicants for the 2015 and 2016 election cycles are shown in

Appendix A.

Key Determinants of the Recruiting Process

The study group focused on the three most recent election cycles for 2013/14, 2015/16

and 2016/17 to compare results. Unless otherwise noted, the discussion in this section

and the following section regarding the selection process is applicable to all three cycles.

All recruitment processes were guided by and materially consistent with the provisions of

SIPOA Bylaws §7.6, paragraph 2. During the most recent 2016/17 cycle, approximately

15 to 20 of the 40 to 50 individuals personally approached were identified from the

following sources:

The roster of individuals presently serving on SIPOA committees;

Individuals making exemplary contributions to volunteer organizations or special

interest groups (e.g., SINHG, Turtle Patrol, etc.), as noted by the leadership of

these groups or personal knowledge of NC members;

Suggestions of past board members;

Suggestions of COVAR leadership;

Direct contact with or knowledge of other potentially qualified members of the

Seabrook community.

All individuals contacted regarding applying for Board or NC openings met the basic

screening criteria specified in Bylaws §7.6, paragraph 1. In identifying individuals to

recruit, NC members also used personal and informal group assessments of their skill sets

vis-à-vis specific needs of the Board, as well as their potential ability to score well

against selection criteria in an interview.

Members of the NC reported being sensitive to diversity concerns and were alert to

opportunities to recruit part-time residents, women, villa owners, and non-Club members.

The NC did not establish precise numerical goals in this regard but rather made what they

considered to be genuine good-faith efforts to seek out property owners in these groups.

NC members reported that none of them received any unsolicited suggestions, advice, or

comments on potential candidates—either formal or otherwise—from any officer or

employee of the Club, nor from any Town official or employee. Additionally, all NC

members stated that they did not seek opinions on the merits of any applicant from any

persons not on the Nominating Committee.

4

In identifying possible candidates for both the Board and the Nominating Committee, the

NC used—for general guidance—a list of evaluation criteria they had established for

application in the selection process. These included but were not limited to the

following. A complete list is attached in Appendix B.

An optimistic, positive, and enthusiastic attitude toward service

Established reputation as an agent for constructive change

Established track record of effective execution of planned action

Ability to take a long-range view of Island needs and priorities

Ability to meet time commitment of service

Ability to operate effectively in a collaborative team environment

Ability to sustain focus and stay organized

Demonstrated interviewing skills (for Nominating Committee)

Understanding of Seabrook Island Core Values

While it was impossible to comprehensively assess the extent to which potential

candidates would meet these criteria, the NC guided itself toward identifying individuals

who—within a reasonable degree of confidence—could be expected to exhibit these

qualities in an interview.

Key Determinants of the Selection Process

The NC used a structured process in interviewing and selecting the ultimate slate of

candidates. Each candidate who submitted a complete application package was given the

opportunity to interview before the entire NC.

First, a list of candidate evaluation factors was compiled based on specific factors

enumerated in SIPOA Bylaws §7.6, essential leadership skills, and current needs of the

Board and Nominating Committee. (See Appendix B.)

Second, these factors were weighted in importance using a QFD (Quality Function

Deployment) template. This decision-making aid is considered commonly accepted

practice in quality control circles. A standardized evaluation form based on this template

was developed and used for all candidates who interviewed. All Board applicants were

asked identical questions. All NC applicants were asked identical questions that varied

somewhat from those asked of Board applicants.

Next, a series of interview questions was derived from the evaluation factors. The

responses to these questions were then used to assess each prospective candidate with

respect to the evaluation factors. NC members took turns asking questions and engaging

the applicants in follow-up dialogue. Members reported taking copious notes during the

interviews.

NC Chairs refrained from participating in this process, as required by the Bylaws. They

did not ask the applicants any questions nor did they complete evaluation forms. Their

5

function was to facilitate the process, ensure the independence of the NC, and vote only

in the event of a tie among candidates after the selection process.

After each interview, NC members—individually and privately—scored each applicant

on the standardized QFD form. The results were used as the basis for discussion and

decision-making after all interviews had been completed. In developing consensus on a

slate of candidates, the scores for each candidate were a significant part of the selection

process, but they were not exclusively determinative.

Communication Materials and Channels

The study group examined the topic of communications from two perspectives: 1)

announcement and promotion of the opportunity to run for the Board and Nominating

Committee; and 2) presentation of selected candidates, their backgrounds, and other

pertinent information to property owners.

Announcement and Promotion

A general call for candidates went out on or about July 4th

of each year. Announcements

were placed in the weekly SIPOA e-blast, the Seabrooker, and Island Connection

newspaper. Periodic reminders were placed in the e-blast as the application deadline

approached.

Members of the NC also communicated with COVAR leadership and other villa owners

to encourage promotion of the opportunity to serve within their regimes.

Presentation of Candidates

In the 2016 election cycle, the NC used venues and techniques that had been used in the

past for the purpose of presenting candidates to property owners. These included a

candidates’ forum at the Lake House sponsored by COVAR especially for villa owners;

an audio podcast interview with each candidate that was posted on Tidelines (see

Appendix C for the standardized list of questions asked of each); an Island-wide Meet-

and-Greet forum held at the Lake House that was videotaped and posted on Tidelines;

and standardized biographical forms for each candidate that were posted on the SIPOA

web site.

The COVAR forum on December 10 was sparsely attended (approximately a

dozen people). After the candidates made personal introductions, no observers

made comments or directed questions to the candidates.

The audio podcast link on Tidelines was accessed 214 times, which includes

repeat visitors and those who clicked on the link but didn’t listen or finish. A

similar podcast for the preceding election cycle was accessed 265 times.

6

A transcript of the podcast was prepared and posted online; it received 38 views.

The videotaped Meet-and-Greet forum at the Lake House was well attended. The

videotape link posted on Tidelines was accessed 88 times. A similar video for the

preceding election cycle was accessed 161 times.

Commitment of SIPOA Resources

NC participants stated that the commitment of resources by SIPOA to the recruitment and

selection process did not meet their expectations. They noted that significant effort was

expended among NC members in preparing written materials for applicants and for the

selection process, and that assistance from SIPOA clerical support staff was requested but

was not consistently available. Members of the NC also remarked that it was imperative

to schedule multimedia productions such as podcasts and videotaping well in advance of

deadlines.

The question of SIPOA resource commitment is directly related to some of the

recommendations of the NC to improve the candidate recruitment and selection process,

as noted in the following section of this report.

Recommendations to Enhance Recruitment and Selection

The study group believes that candidate recruitment can be improved in the following

ways.

R1. Motivate More Property Owners to Participate

The study group believes that more vigorous promotion of Board and committee service

in a positive light, stressing the personal satisfaction that comes from serving the

Seabrook community, would be valuable in expanding the candidate pool. The NC

recommends that the current Nominating Committee investigate and undertake feasible

actions in this regard, building on both past efforts and new initiatives.

R2. Expand Pool of Qualified Applicants Through Committee Participation

The study group believes strongly that participation in Island committees, special interest

groups, and organized volunteer efforts provides a substantial and highly desirable

experiential and networking base for future candidates. The success of efforts to increase

numbers of qualified part-time residents and villa owners (the majority of which are part-

time residents) in the candidate pool will depend in large measure on their increased

participation and leadership in committees and activities.

7

There are two essential elements in a concerted effort to accomplish this.

The first is development and adoption of protocols for staffing Board committees. The

study group is aware of anecdotes in which individuals who have volunteered for

committee service have never received responses from committee chairs. Others involve

instances in which people have been dismissed from committees without explanation

when new chairs have assumed leadership. Although participation on a committee is not

guaranteed in perpetuity, the study group believes there should be a rationale for

declaring staffing needs of the various committees from year to year, and that committee

members should be recruited accordingly. The NC believes that a more formal

application and selection process for committees is advisable, and that this process should

include measures that encourage increased participation from parts of the Seabrook

community that are currently underrepresented, such as part-time residents.

The second is implementation of technology that facilitates participation of committee

and Board members when they are absent from Seabrook. This involves reliable and

facile functioning of remote meeting software in all rooms in the Lake House, with

adequate internet capacity that prevents drops, eliminates sluggish response times, and

permits live streaming of meetings. In the past, off-Island participation in committee and

Board business by both participants and observers has been suppressed by the absence of

adequate internet infrastructure and the remote meeting tools that take advantage of it.

The study group is convinced this deficiency must be eliminated if candidate pools fed by

Board committees and other activities are to expand and become more diverse.

R3. Enhance Record-Keeping During Recruitment Process

As the prior NC harvested names of potential qualified candidates to approach, record-

keeping fell to each committee member to keep track progress or lack thereof for each

personal recruitment contact. The study group recommends that a standard contact form

by used by current and future Nominating Committees that includes the names of those

contacted, the dates of initial and follow-up contacts, the results of each contact, and the

reason for declining participation (if applicable). These forms, which would remain

confidential throughout and after the recruitment process, would facilitate accurate

summary counts of how many individuals were contacted, in what manner, and the final

disposition of efforts for each recruited individual.

R4. Increase Understanding of the Nominating and Selection Processes

The study group concludes that an expanded recruitment package should be prepared and

distributed to potential candidates, and be made available to any property owner

interested in increasing their understanding of the candidate recruitment and selection

process. This informational package should include the following:

8

A recapitulation of the relevant sections of the Bylaws regarding the

responsibilities of the NC with regard to recruitment and selection;

A summary description of the recruitment and selection process with a calendar of

milestones;

A list of the members of the current NC and contact information:

A list of candidate skills and capabilities that the NC believes are worthy of

special emphasis in the current election cycle;

The Seabrook Island Common Vision and Core Values statement;

A copy of the Seabrook Island Strategic Plan;

FAQs regarding the application process and time commitments associated with

service (meeting frequency; committee work, etc.).

The study group believes that an accurate understanding among property owners about

how and why the NC discharges its responsibilities specified in the Bylaws should be

more widespread. To this end, the study group recommends that the informational

package described above should be posted on the SIPOA web site so as to be readily

accessible to all property owners. Much of this content is already available online but is

not consolidated in one place. Combining existing and new content into a single-click

location would facilitate transmittal of this information and contribute to a better

understanding of the nominating and selection processes by interested property owners.

R5. Expand Content of Candidate Statements

The study group recommends that the current NC expand the range of content in

candidate statements to include not only biographical information and synopses of

Seabrook-related experience, but also content that may include the following:

A statement on the most important matters the candidate believes are facing the

Seabrook community; and/or

How the candidate intends to discharge service on the Board or NC in concert

with Seabrook Island Common Vision and Core Values.

The current NC would be responsible for reviewing the candidate statements and

publishing rebuttals of any parts that contained factual inaccuracies (e.g., the cost of an

ongoing or completed capital improvement, governing procedures, requirements of

Seabrook Bylaws, etc.). Candidates would be afforded the opportunity to revise the

statements before publication in ballot materials. If declined, rebuttals of the NC would

be appended to the published statements.

This is not a new notion, having been suggested by Board members and others in the

past. The study group believes it has merit and could beneficially transmit salient

information to property owners.

9

R6. Refocus COVAR Activities

Due to exceptionally low attendance and lack of participation of villa owners at the

December 2016 COVAR candidate forum, the study group recommends that the current

NC consult with the COVAR Board regarding expectations for the event and whether

recent and expected future attendance justifies its continuance. The study group further

believes that a recruiting workshop with villa and other regime leaders may yield

worthwhile results and urges the current NC to investigate this idea with COVAR

leadership and implement it if deemed feasible and desirable.

R7. Consider Background Checks on Candidates

The study group discussed whether the Board should authorize routine background

checks on applicants to discern if they have past or pending criminal proceedings and

judgments.

On one hand, this action is consistent with expending all reasonable due diligence in

evaluating candidates.

On the other, there are factors that complicate this course of action. First, there are no

current restrictions in POA Bylaws that would disqualify someone with a criminal record

from being able to serve. Second, there is a question of the number and gravity of

criminal convictions, should any be discovered, that would trigger disqualification should

such a rule be implemented. Third, if legal necessity forced people to sign a statement

acknowledging that their candidacy may cause a background check to be made, it could

have a chilling effect on their desire to serve.

On this matter, the study group has no specific recommendation for either adoption or

rejection, intending instead to put the matter before the Board and others for

consideration and discussion.

R8. Ensure that SIPOA Bylaws Are Easily Accessible Online The study group is aware of efforts under way to redesign navigation for web sites of the

POA, the Club, and the Town. They believe that ensuring clear and direct access to POA

Bylaws is an important element of increasing awareness and understanding of the

election process among property owners. They urge those managing this effort to enable

users to access the Bylaws within two mouse clicks of entry onto the new consolidated

landing page.

10

Appendix A: Summaries of Applicant and Candidate Results

(Note: Reflects applicants only--does not include counts of all persons contacted and

actively recruited by the NC who did not apply)

For the 2015/16 Election Cycle:

Board Candidates

Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Not Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Elected

Personally

Contacted/Actively

Recruited by NC

5 4 3

Applied

Independently to

NC

1 1* 1*

TOTAL 6 5 4

*Applicant subsequently placed on ballot through petition process

Nominating Committee Candidates

Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Not Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Elected

Personally

Contacted/Actively

Recruited by NC

3 0 2

Applied

Independently to

NC

0 2 0

TOTAL 3 2 2

(…continues)

11

APPENDIX A (continued)

For the 2016/17 Election Cycle:

Board Candidates

Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Not Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Elected

Personally

Contacted/Actively

Recruited by NC

2 0 2

Applied

Independently to

NC

2 2 2

TOTAL 4 2 4

Nominating Committee Candidates

Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Not Slated by

Nominating

Committee

Elected

Personally

Contacted/Actively

Recruited by NC

3 1 2

Applied

Independently to

NC

0 1 0

TOTAL 3 2 2

12

Appendix B: List of Candidate Evaluation Criteria (Unweighted)

For Board Candidates:

Enthusiastic/Commitment Level

Understanding of Seabrook Common Vision and Core Values

Communication/Listening Skills/Computer Skills

Leadership Skill/Team Player

Ability to Focus/Organized/Problem Solver/Change Agent/Forward Thinker/Long

Range View

Fits Needs of Existing Board

General Knowledge of Island/Governance Process/Past Contributions

Conduct Style/Appearance

Creativity/Thinking Outside the Box

Length of Time on Seabrook

For Nominating Committee Candidates:

Collaborative Spirit/Team Player/Open Minded

Personal Connections and Network including social/sport/professional

Interview skills/ability to successfully judge

Convincing/Sales Mentality/Forward/”Out Front”

Familiarity with Island Governance, Vision, and Core Values

Committees Served/Associations Served

Computer skills

13

Appendix C: Podcast Questions for Candidates (2016/17 Election Cycle)

For SIPOA Board Candidates:

1. In two minutes or less, tell us about yourself and why you wish to be a member of

the SIPOA Board of Directors?

2. In your opinion, what are the top issues facing Seabrook Island? How would you

address those issues?

3. What unique skills & talent would you bring to the SIPOA Board?

4. Why do you want to make this substantial commitment?

For Nominating Committee Candidates:

1. In two minutes or less, tell us about yourself and why you wish to be a member of

the Nominating Committee.

2. What do you see as the role for the Nominating Committee?

3. How would you go about recruiting candidates?

4. What characteristics of leadership and organizational skill would you be looking

for in successful candidates?

5. What interviewing experience and skills will you bring to this role?