labman2 wrote:Time to draft a petition and see if the AAST is on the level of wanting to be the "gold standard" for tech representation.
If so, we need the board to review this policy, and do not make it so impossible to have a fair election. Otherwise, it will seem as if it is rigged to bestow the officerships on friends.
I woul like to believe that they can understand the concern. If not, then perhaps we will learn a lottle bit about the AAST.

The statement I am pasting below was printed in the 2010 A2Zzz, and is a result of a question about the elections process. Since this was printed, I note that AAST has formed an ethics committee, but there is still a lot of fog around the election process and how nominees are chosen.
"To ensure that the AAST board of directors continues to pursue
the best interests of the membership, an independent Conflict of
Interest (COI) Review Panel consisting of AAST members and
non-members will be assembled to perform a thorough review of
the AAST Conflict of Interest Policy. I will serve as an ex-officio
on this panel, which will not involve other members of the board of
directors. The goal is for the panel to provide the AAST board of
directors with objective recommendations that represent the diverse
views and opinions of leaders in allied health professions. Once the
work of the panel is complete, the board will take appropriate steps
to establish a new COI Policy for members who serve in leadership
roles on the board of directors and committees. A separate body will
be assembled to review any reported conflicts and resolve potential
conflicts based on the new policy criteria."