MRA bylaws changes round 2

[Fastt Racing]

Great summation "Blaircsf" Harness. I agree with all of your points.

I think there is something "broken" with the board, contrary to the assumption above that nothing needs "fixed". This is what we are all discussing currently, and have been for years. Personal attacks are not the motivation, nor will attacks be tolerated as a response.

The election process of the MRA has proved to contain some flaws. A large group of members have been discussing the potential changes which could make the MRA club take the next step toward shoring up policy, creating a much more inviting atmosphere for volunteering, and capitalizing on the wealth of management talent within the MRA membership.

Many competent members have run for a position, and lost to the incumbent. Why is that? It appears to be one of the side effects of being a racing club, where being in front of the membership regularly for a term creates such a popularity/familiarity advantage, that it sets the bar abnormally high for a challenger. In other words, the current board director/representative would have to do an absolutely terrible job for them to loose their position on the board during a normal election, as the election process is currently structured. That in itself can insulate the board from "excessive turnover", but where is the balance of quality fresh blood on the board then?

We have seen several examples of individuals serving on the board to the point of burnout because of this. I also think there are examples of board positions receiving minimal preservation, because the board member has served for too long to maintain their enthusiasm for improvement.

I strongly believe that the appointment process of board members is not the right thing for the MRA moving forward. It was a provision in the bylaws to be used in a time of emergency, but has been misused at this point. According to this poll the proposed changes also appear to have a lot of support [41% support at this point].

I believe the appointment process has many negative consequences. The "collusion" that was referenced above is actually ironically a more accurate description of how the board is currently assembled by all these past appointments, than it is a concern for any probability that it would be an issue through electing a fresh board representative/director when the current reaches their term limit.

I am very passionate about racing motorcycles, and my primary interest in any of this is only because I truly understand that a healthy political dynamic is a necessary component of a sound racing organization. It is my plan to continue serving the Motorcycle Racing community into the future. The negativity exuded by the opponents of these proposals says a lot about the "board vs membership" mentality that has been noticed on many occasions, by far more MRA members than the board seems to realize. I am interested and willing to do whatever I can to support positive change in the MRA. The dysfunctional environment that has turned off many racers and associates can be easily fixed through some simple organization and policy improvements that prevent either party from "taking things personal" and letting things turn to "drama", instead of appropriately addressing the membership needs and inquiries.

I am proud of lots of BoD members of past years. Some that come to mind: Mark Shellinger, Scott Rybarik, Tony Baker, Aaron Fisk, Jeff Brown, Carl Sorenson, and several other friends of the last decade of racing with the MRA. The innovation and leadership has been very admirable. I would love to see the MRA continue to hold elections where lots of competent candidates get involved, because they aren't turned off by bickering, and because they truly feel like they will be afforded the opportunity to do a great job for the club. This starts with the membership having a real vote in how the MRA is run, which means they also have a real say in who is running it. This should be a quite agreeable premise, and I hope we can spur good discussions about how to go about implementing these terms.

Thanks for your time and attention everyone!
Dennis Stowers #151

[Jim Brewer]

First and foremost, thanks to both you and Blair for your responses! Both are well thought out, clearly articulated, and constructive. I, for one, really appreciate that.

I think there is something "broken" with the board, contrary to the assumption above that nothing needs "fixed".

I think you get into this a little later, but it helps my understanding when you say something like that if you can be specific as to what's "broken". .. but I'll continue.

Many competent members have run for a position, and lost to the incumbent. Why is that? It appears to be one of the side effects of being a racing club, where being in front of the membership regularly for a term creates such a popularity/familiarity advantage, that it sets the bar abnormally high for a challenger.

That's a valid point, but incumbents have an advantage in any democratic election process for the very reason you say. I don't think the MRA can fix that if no other institution has been able to.

I also think there are examples of board positions receiving minimal preservation, because the board member has served for too long to maintain their enthusiasm for improvement.

That also is occasionally true. It's safe to say that anyone who's served on the MRA board more than a couple years has had some level of burnout. But that burnout is almost always balanced by a personal commitment to the sport and a desire not to let people down by quitting. Otherwise the person wouldn't have wanted to be on the board in the first place.

I strongly believe that the appointment process of board members is not the right thing for the MRA moving forward. It was a provision in the bylaws to be used in a time of emergency, but has been misused at this point.

The vacancy process is directly out of a standard legal template for creating bylaws for nonprofit corporations. (for example Article VII.Section 7. at https://www.coloradononprofits.org/s...1%20Bylaws.pdf) I'll make a couple points.

1. It's totally legitimate to challenge this process for the MRA, but before substantially changing something that's already passed legal scrutiny, I would want to consult with a lawyer.
2. Other race clubs (AFM, CMRA, CRA, OMRRA, for example) use a board member vacancy filling process basically the same as the MRA's. I'm not sure why the MRA's process is "not the right thing" when it appears to be ok for these other clubs. (yes, I did go research their bylaws)

The "collusion" that was referenced above is actually ironically a more accurate description of how the board is currently assembled by all these past appointments,

Again, can you give examples? Recent appointments have been treasurer (2016 & 2020) and rider rep/trophies (2018). Other changes that might be called appointments have been promotions within the board - is that what you're referring to?

I am very passionate about racing motorcycles, and my primary interest in any of this is only because I truly understand that a healthy political dynamic is a necessary component of a sound racing organization.

Can you expand on that for me because I really don't know what you mean by a "healthy political dynamic" in a club. I've raced with quite a few clubs that I would consider "sound" (AFM, AHRMA, ASRA/CCS, CMRA, CRA, AMA, etc. etc.) and I never had much of a view nor really a concern about their internal politics. I only care about their race operations, safety record, competition fairness, and costs.

The negativity exuded by the opponents of these proposals says a lot about the "board vs membership" mentality that has been noticed on many occasions, by far more MRA members than the board seems to realize.

I'm pretty sure the board realizes this mentality exists. This is nothing new, though. For some reason that puzzles me is that there has always been a component of the membership that "rages against the machine", regardless of who "the machine" is. You mentioned Schellinger, Rybo, Baker, Brownie, etc. I know each of them fairly well and I'm pretty confident that I can say that each one has experienced the rage of some members.

In any group of people, you'll always find some that will confront who they think is authority. The puzzling part to me is these confronters in the MRA seem to forget they're raging against volunteers. I'm sure, though, there are those who rage at volunteers in Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, or the United Way - but I digress...

This starts with the membership having a real vote in how the MRA is run, which means they also have a real say in who is running it.

That's a pretty strongly negative comment to end your missive. The annual MRA election and (as I pointed out earlier) the board vacancy replacement process are almost identical to other Colorado nonprofit corporations was well as a number of other American roadrace clubs. I'll challenge you to support your accusation that it's not "a real vote".