EXCLUSIVE: ACS National Election Results
November 20th, 2012
ChemBark has learned the results of the American Chemical Society’s 2012 national elections, which have yet to be reported by the Society or Chemical and Engineering News:
ACS President-Elect: Tom Barton def. Luis Echegoyen
Director, District I: Thomas Gilbert def. Neil Jespersen
Director, District V: John Adams def. Peter Dorhout
Directors at large: Ingrid Montes and Valerie Kuck def. Helen “Bonnie” Lawlor and Carol Duane
Dr. Barton triumphed by a margin of ~3:2 over Dr. Echegoyen in the contest for president-elect. ChemBark notes it never received a response from Dr. Echegoyen to its questionnaire for the presidential candidates. Dr. Barton did use this opportunity to engage the community on a variety of important issues, and his responses can be found here.
Note that in the elections for the district directors, both incumbents lost (Jespersen and Dorhout). In the election for the directors at large—in which only ACS councilors are allowed to vote—the only incumbent director seeking re-election won (Kuck). Is the wider electorate sending a message that it is displeased with the status quo of ACS leadership?
November 21st, 2012 at 12:04 PM
I will admit I voted for Tom Barton. His willingness to engage the audience (read: other chemists) and the re-use of most of Echegoyen’s text in his campaign statement swayed me. I have not met Barton, but have interacted with Echegoyen at a dinner.
November 21st, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Dorhout lost by 5 votes. 5 votes! He should DEFINITELY be thinking recount.
November 21st, 2012 at 8:09 PM
The five-vote margin is especially disturbing when you consider that very late in the game, ACS headquarters decided to extend the voting deadline by a week. The reason given was Superstorm Sandy. I would like to know whether the ACS has real-time knowledge of where the vote totals stand during the election.
November 22nd, 2012 at 10:00 AM
I hope you guys don’t think your job is over just because the election is over. I will continue to value and seek the opinions of those on this blog in order to make the ACS as membership interactive and open as is possible. Incidentally, I inquired about the 5-vote margin and learned that the results were carefully checked and recounted several times.
All my thanks and a happy Thanksgiving (dinner) to all!
November 22nd, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Happy Thanksgiving and hearty congratulations, Mr. President-Elect!
Thank you again for your willingness to discuss “taboo” subjects such as journal pricing, executive compensation, and Leadscope. And until the problems are fixed, we will be here to offer opinions and ideas about how to improve the public image of chemistry, employment for our colleagues, and access to our journals.
We look forward to progress!
November 22nd, 2012 at 3:05 PM
Congratulations, Tom! I valued your comments and insights during the election. I look forward to engaging you during your term to move things forward. I am rooting for your success in accomplishing what you have envisioned.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours!
November 23rd, 2012 at 11:39 AM
… About that recent reported (certified) five (5) vote margin with the ACS election ….
Several years ago when e-voting was barely on the horizon, the actual ACS election ballot counting
was held my home near San Francisco CA Airport. Then an ACS candidate for national office could attend to watch the vote counting and the deliberations about valid and invalid ballots. I was asked by one candidate to attend the ACS ballot counting as his designated observer. I did. That ACS vote counting was very, very professionally run, checked, double-checked, overseen and managed. The election results were certified before they were released.
In Nov. 2009 , I would see my own defeat as a petition candiate in the election for ACS Director-at-Large
… by a five vote margin. A recount was never in my thinking.
We all have much to be thankful for …
….& YES.. for ACS and the chemical enterprise the heavy lifting is just starting.