MRA bylaws changes round 2

[TD675]

I also voted "No" to both of these changes. Having sat on the BOD for a few years myself, I have first hand experience with the election process and with appointing people to fill a vacant role. The two that I specifically remember were appointing Jeremy to the VP position and Laci to the Treasurer position. Neither of them had any kind of preference points over anyone else who interviewed, they were simply the best fit for the position in the club's time of need, and we interviewed multiple people in each of these circumstances. Then, the next election cycle came along in November and each of them were elected by the membership to continue to fill that role on the BOD.


If we are mid-season and a position needs to be filled asap, I believe the BOD is more than qualified to make that decision. That is kind of why the members have elected those people to those positions to make those decisions. It's all in an effort to keep us racing as seamlessly as possible, and I am pretty sure that's why we are all here...to race a motorcycle. Members trust the board to handle money, make schedules, deposits, contracts, solve interpersonal racer issues, make calls on race day, find gate staff, find corner staff, cancel races if need be, reschedule races if need be, make hard calls on rule book and bike legality issues, and a plethora of other no less important things. But somehow they aren't trustworthy enough to find a viable temporary solution to fill a vital role so that we can continue to keep racing until the end of the year when we can all breathe and run a proper election?


It ain't broke, don't fix it.






I kind of liked the idea of the term limits and if I had seen elections go any other way I may have voted for this. But the fact is that it is already difficult to find people willing to take on a board position, then we are going to take away someone who might be doing a very good job for the chance at someone new? It's been my experience that if someone is not filling the position to a satisfactory level, they either leave on their own or are removed. When I held a position, I openly encouraged interested parties to run against me and I have seen the same from several current board members. I do understand that it is very difficult to win against an incumbent, but I also know that it has been VERY close (like within two or three votes). I think that if a sitting BOD member is doing their job that poorly, they will be removed by either the board or the members. I don't see a reason to forcefully remove a sitting member who is doing a satisfactory job.