The use of “social media” is a controversial topic in the context of international officer and director campaign policy. The current policy has some interesting limitations on what a candidate can do. I’d like to explore a few of them here. First, let’s consider the underpinnings of the policy, as I understand them (these aren’t spelled out anywhere):

• Keeping costs down certainly makes sense. This is expressed through rules like no hospitality suites and limiting the attendance of Toastmasters events outside one’s home region. I understand that up to 10-15 years ago, candidates for international office sometimes threw extravagant parties at the conventions with immense amounts of food and drink.

• Leveling the playing field makes sense to a limited degree as well. But if the intent is to “level” the field by limiting the use of current technologies to communicate, or by preventing candidates from interacting with voters through some forms of communications that other candidates might not be comfortable with, taking it to the lowest common denominator, I don’t quite get it. Or if it’s because some candidates may not have time to participate, I think that showing commitment and having the time are perfectly valid criteria for the voters to consider. Leveling the playing field also appears to be the goal of another policy, which is that candidates must use separate social media profiles for campaigns, presumably with a whole new set of “links” and “friends”. However, this causes Toastmasters to lose out on tremendous potential public relations from the candidate to non-Toastmasters. It also goes against the whole ethos of social media by forcing a split personality approach.
• Avoiding implicit endorsements is another goal addressed by prohibiting images of any other person on the candidate’s materials (web site, brochure, signs, etc.). Yet, with modern social media, anyone can “tag” a photo or video with someone’s name, and it shows up on their profile/wall, entirely outside of the candidate’s control. Merely appearing in a photo with someone does not constitute an endorsement. Adding words in praise of a candidate is clearly an endorsement, and should only be done with the endorser’s permission.
• Too much contact is also a concern. With as many as 20-30 international director and officer candidates all trying to contact the District Governors, Immediate Past District Governors, and some other leaders (by phone, not electronically!), it could be quite annoying to the recipient. Unfortunately, to a large extent, that’s one of the hazards of the office; as a voter (and especially the LGETs who will become DGs and hold hundreds of votes at the August business meeting), it is their responsibility to become familiar with the candidates. And hopefully, they’ll do more than just listen to the 10-minute segment for each candidate at the showcase, or a 15-minute interview.  Unfortunately, I know at least one DG who prided herself on skipping the showcase and avoiding any interviews.

There’s some specific oddities in the current policy I want to highlight, though.

• Candidates can make unlimited phone calls to anyone (other than the month of June), but only two unsolicited electronic communications the whole year (including social media “invites” to link or friend). Now, if I were a voter receiving all this attention, which one is less disruptive, a phone call or an e-mail? Furthermore, given our growing international nature, which one is cheaper to send? It seems clear that this inconsistency should be changed.Something as simple as wishing “happy birthday” to a fellow Toastmaster on their “wall” or by e-mail counts as one of those two unsolicited communications, even if that person is in their own club, a coworker, or spouse! I, like many, sometimes wish friends a happy birthday on Facebook, and when a name shows up in that birthday list, I sometimes don’t even know if they’re a Toastmaster. Or perhaps a friend posts some big news, and everyone is adding comments with congratulations (or sympathy) — but not candidates. One key concept we need in policy is “opt-out“. If a contact recipient requests no further or limited further contact, it must be respected; ignoring this would be a campaign policy violation.
• Participation by candidates in Toastmasters-related discussion groups in social media is entirely prohibited. This is intended to include district and club-focused discussion groups as well. What is the candidate serving in a club office supposed to do, when the club has its own Facebook discussion group? Or if the candidate is a new club chair for the district? What exactly is “social media” in this context; does it include Yahoo groups? An e-mail list? Does the term “discussion group” include postings on a candidate’s own profile or “wall” or blog? Furthermore, aren’t the current LGM, LGET, Second Vice President, and First Vice President candidates for the next year’s office, and thus also prohibited from participating?  Social media are one of the most effective ways for the many voters to get to know candidates, through the public give-and-take.
• Current board members and officers cannot have a Toastmasters-related web site (including blogs). This presumably arises from the “one voice” concept, where every board member supports the decision of the board, despite any earlier disagreement, and that the International President is the only authorized spokesperson for the whole organization. It’s also intended to prevent “perpetual campaigning”, e.g., by a board member planning to run for Second Vice President. Yet, the board members act as spokespersons at every district conference they visit, making presentations on the latest in policy developments (like Proposal A) with no ill effect. Candidates are expected to have campaign web sites, and many of those sites have been remarkably valuable resources for ordinary Toastmasters and district leaders alike. Yet as soon as the candidate is elected (or loses), the web site is forced to be taken down (not even converted into a non-campaign resource). Plus, once you put something on the Internet, it’s there forever. The Internet Archive Wayback Machinehas been archiving web sites since 1996, and now holds two million gigabytes of data. You can find any previous campaign web site on there anyway.Blogs are remarkably efficient at helping to distribute information to constituents, and are often used at the district leader level to great effect.

I have faith in the voters to be able to tell the difference between a candidate who is just posting junk to build name recognition, and a genuine effort to participate and help in the community, whether on-line or off-line. The difference between “famous” and “infamous” comes to mind.

We’re a communications organization. Why would we deliberately prohibit modern means of communications, like social media, when selecting and evaluating our leaders?