Which is more important in voting for an AMC Secretary?

Recently, I have been asked which I consider to be more important in an AMC Secretary: the secretarial skills or the "AMC skills", ill-defined as the latter is.

I think that, first and foremost, when one is electing someone to a position that calls for specific skills and tasks, which AMC Secretary certainly is, that specific role is more important in the calculus of voting than the general role as shared by the entirety of the AMC.

If someone is elected to the office of Secretary who is unable to fulfill those specific duties (or, at least to the AMC and/or membership's satisfaction), then the AMC is left with the unenviable position of appointing someone to take over that role. (And that's been done previously.) Whereas, if someone is elected to the office of Secretary who can well fulfill the specific duties but isn't adept at the rest of the AMC matters that are spread across the AMC as a whole (or shared among them all, more likely), there is nothing that really needs to be done to rectify the deficiency; the odds that their individual vote will turn the tide on matters is small.

In the ideal situation, the person being elected to the office of Secretary will be able to not only do the secretarial skills well, but will also be able to fulfill the other AMC "skills" well, too.

Clearly, I feel that I will be able to fulfill the secretarial and general AMC skillsets well.