Implementing secure online voting for Kiwanis elections, amendments and resolutions would require additional costs to develop web-based resources and processes. Given the organization’s current membership needs, these funds and staff research time would be better allocated to services that strengthen existing clubs and support new club development.
The KI Task Force on Online Voting reported to the KI Board on December 1, 2014 that based on the research performed by KI staff quote “Using online voting for elections and amendments would reduce the direct costs of voting by over 50 percent:from an annual average of US$38,250 for on-site keypad voting to an estimated US$18,000 for online voting.(This cost could be slightly further reduced in the future if Kiwanis International eventually moves from avendor-run system to a Staff-administered process.) “
While the figures quoted are from 2014 and inevitably both on-site keypad voting and online voting would be more expensive now in 2025, there would still be a 50% reduction in costs of moving away from renting keypads, many of which are lost and KI is charged for.
This proposal could cause a decrease in the forward momentum of attendance for the annual Kiwanis International convention. A decline in convention attendance would diminish a key value of Kiwanis membership — fellowship, which fosters personal connections and the exchange of new ideas.
The KI Task Force on Online Voting reported to the KI Board on December 1, 2014 that quote “Staff consulted other service organizations about online voting, asking for any information they would like toshare. We received responses from three who have embraced full or partial online voting: Sertoma (10,769members), Optimists (71,507 members), and Mensa (51,042 members). All threeorganizations were satisfied with their online voting experience. None saw a measurable decline in conventionattendance attributable to online voting.” Attendance at KI Conventions has been on the decline for the past twenty years. Despite a small bump up last year, clubs & members are prioritizing other uses for their limited funds and cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars per person to have a vote at the International Convention/ This means that in 2026 means the vast majority of the North American clubs will not be in attendance or have a voice when the convention is hosted in Manilla, Philippines, much like our friends in Europe and ASPAC don’t when the convention is held most years here in North America.
Establishing an equitable registration fee for those voting at home and for those still voting in person can generate an unnecessary distraction for the organization at a critical time when the focus must be on club strength and new club building.
Setting the SAME registration fee for those voting at home and for those still voting in person creates no distraction at all and in fact adds much needed income to the international convention. If the annual meeting continues to be livestreamed (as it is today), it could be watched online by any member around the world and they would simply pay to participate the same as those in person would do.
For unbiased administration of the combined in-person and remote voting, it may be necessary to ask delegates to establish a club convention fee. Costs for the organization’s convention/house of delegates should be distributed among all the constituent clubs in order to conduct the business of Kiwanis. Currently, costs are borne only by in-person attendees. The convention fee assessed for all clubs would be in addition to the registration fees for members attending in person.
If the cost of remote voting is LESS than the cost of on-site keypad voting and remote voting participants are paying a registration fee that KI wouldn’t have collected otherwise (since those members wouldn’t have attended), this would only cause MORE income to the conference and not require any discussion of a convention fee. On a separate note, the KI Board proposed in 2010 a club convention fee of $250 per club to subsidize the budget of the annual International Convention and allow every club to send two delegates at no cost. This proposed amendment received over 50% of the vote, but didn’t pass and was never revisited.
For officer and trustee elections, remote voting cannot replace the value of in-person interaction between delegates and candidates at an international convention. Candidates should not be elected based on who has the best website or video production. Regarding amendment proposals, hearing live debate sometimes contributes to a delegate’s voting decision, and this proposal diminishes that positive aspect.
Remote voting provides equity to our delegates that currently doesn’t exist. Is it better to have only 10% of our clubs voting or allow reasonable access to all 100%? Why does the KI Board and Staff not want to allow as many member clubs to participate in the election process as possible?
Remote voting could inhibit the ability of delegates to clearly amend proposed amendments. On arduous proposals, this lack of clarity may limit compromise and/or adjustments that are sometimes necessary to accommodate successful implementation of an important issue.
The amendment process is clearly defined in the proposed amendment and would still allow for debate on the floor of each and every amendment. It is only the final version of the amended amendments that would be voted on by the entire body (including remote voters). The Kiwanis International Board supported this exact proposed amendment last year. Why now are they stating that there would be problems?
Sporadic outages or complications in internet service around the world during the specific time(s) of voting cannot be controlled.
The KI Board is empowered by this amendment to ensure enough time is provided in all time zones so that anyone who wants to vote could. Right now, voting is limited to a group of people sitting in one room somewhere in the world.
With the need to communicate as frequently as necessary with every Kiwanis Club around the world in a noticeable way, the costs of campaigning for Kiwanis International offices would significantly increase. This could give wealthier candidates from larger districts a significant advantage in gaining voter attention.
If the cost of campaigning for Kiwanis International is truly a concern of the KI Board, they should propose an amendment limiting how much a candidate can spend to seek International Office, not by limiting who should be allowed to vote.
Given these challenges, implementing remote voting at this time could introduce unnecessary costs, complexities and unintended consequences that outweigh the potential benefits. Maintaining the integrity, equity and in-person engagement of the Kiwanis election process remains essential to the organization’s mission and long-term strength.
If our organization truly wants to build new clubs and grow, we need to be prepared to accept voices from everywhere, not just those that can afford to take time off from work or family and fly to some remote location (on another continent) to exercise the rights given to every Kiwanis club by our bylaws.
Kiwanis Remote Voting Amendment
“Using online voting for elections and amendments would reduce the direct costs of voting by over 50 percent:from an annual average of US$38,250 for on-site keypad voting to an estimated US$18,000 for online voting.(This cost could be slightly further reduced in the future if Kiwanis International eventually moves from avendor-run system to a Staff-administered process.) “
While the figures quoted are from 2014 and inevitably both on-site keypad voting and online voting would be more expensive now in 2025, there would still be a 50% reduction in costs of moving away from renting keypads, many of which are lost and KI is charged for.
“Staff consulted other service organizations about online voting, asking for any information they would like toshare. We received responses from three who have embraced full or partial online voting: Sertoma (10,769members), Optimists (71,507 members), and Mensa (51,042 members). All threeorganizations were satisfied with their online voting experience. None saw a measurable decline in conventionattendance attributable to online voting.”
Attendance at KI Conventions has been on the decline for the past twenty years. Despite a small bump up last year, clubs & members are prioritizing other uses for their limited funds and cannot afford to spend thousands of dollars per person to have a vote at the International Convention/ This means that in 2026 means the vast majority of the North American clubs will not be in attendance or have a voice when the convention is hosted in Manilla, Philippines, much like our friends in Europe and ASPAC don’t when the convention is held most years here in North America.
If the annual meeting continues to be livestreamed (as it is today), it could be watched online by any member around the world and they would simply pay to participate the same as those in person would do.
On a separate note, the KI Board proposed in 2010 a club convention fee of $250 per club to subsidize the budget of the annual International Convention and allow every club to send two delegates at no cost. This proposed amendment received over 50% of the vote, but didn’t pass and was never revisited.
Why does the KI Board and Staff not want to allow as many member clubs to participate in the election process as possible?
It is only the final version of the amended amendments that would be voted on by the entire body (including remote voters).
The Kiwanis International Board supported this exact proposed amendment last year. Why now are they stating that there would be problems?