To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 11.1.0 or greater is installed.

Report of the SIOP Election Committee José M. Cortina Chair Our most recent elections were the first since the SIOP Executive Board ap- proved the refinement of several as- pects of SIOP’s election procedures. For a complete recap of these changes see “An Interview with Committee Chair Doug Reynolds” available online at: http://www.siop.org/article_view.aspx? article=957). In her chair report last year, then Presi- dent-Elect Tammy Allen reported that although the changes in election proce- dures might not have a noticeable influ- ence on the outcome of the process, they should improve the transparency and clarity of the process. She also men- tioned the need to address two further issues. First, some board positions re- ceive a small number of nominations. Second, there is a need for continued review of the modified procedures. other than president (Communications Officer, Conference and Program Offi- cer, Research and Science Officer). In each case, two people received rela- tively large numbers of nominations. This in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. We must reiterate, however, that the election process begins with nomination. If there is someone that you the reader wish to see elected to a certain position, then we would ask you not only to nominate that person but to encourage others to do the same. We also discussed the changes that had been made in time for the 2013 elec- tions. Although changes may be made in the near future, the Election Commit- tee, with the support of the Executive Board, decided not to make any addi- tional modifications. The reasons were that it wasn’t clear what changes, if any, ought to be made and that changes to These two issues appear to be inextrica- elections procedures create disrup- bly intertwined, at least for the moment. tions to which members often require The Election Committee (Reynolds, Al- time to adjust. len, Cortina) discussed a variety of issues relating to elections during multiple con- In any case, as we noted in December, ference calls, but the concern that was [http://www.siop.org/UserFiles/Image/ raised most often was the small number Refresh/Voting_Results_2014.pdf] the of people who received a substantial results are in, and we had an abundance number of nominations for the positions of excellent nominees. Thank you all for The Industrial Organizational Psychologist 193