MRA bylaws changes round 2

[blaircsf]

Normally, people aren't positioning their lives so they're ready to raise their hands at a moment's notice should a position open up. To be fair, I think it's important to have a nomination period so people have more than a few minutes to decide if they want to make such a commitment. Additionally, most of the club members don't cast their votes the same instant they receive their ballots.

I don't think anyone is advocating a few minutes. As an example the above screenshot from USBA indicates a two week and one day period. A week for nominations, a one day turnaround, and a one week voting period. The proposed wording provides a four week window which feels pretty reasonable.

Personally, I was applying that argument only to term limited board positions. Nobody has offered a rebuttal to my statement that it creates a gateway to corruption.

I don't think it creates anymore opportunity than a normal election or appointment. It would preclude one "good apple" from running if a "bad apple" and a friend wanted. It does nothing to prevent other "good apples" from running.

You're going to have to show me where someone said that. I looked back over all of the responses and I didn't find that quote.

That wasn't a direct quote from this thread more a combination of things posted here and elsewhere (so maybe the quote marks weren't ideal). If you want a direct quote though

...
The fact is that there simply isn't a large number of people even WILLING to serve their club. If someone can get elected for a fourth term or is willing to be appointed, let them serve!

feels pretty similar.

Do say more about that - what trend are you talking about? AFAIK, all the voting in the MRA is open and fair. Is there some undercurrent that you're seeing with the annual elections?

The trend being incumbents always winning. If you've seen a couple elections and the only new faces come from openings, it's not surprising to see openings generate the most interest.

I can say the vast majority of people that resign/retire from the board are either fried to a crisp, or have some major personal circumstance getting in the way. I say this because serving on the MRA board can be hugely rewarding but also can be profoundly frustrating.

I would say the "fried to a crisp" part is a negative. I would much rather see more people involved and previous board members who are still engaged and therefore more likely to be available for unexpected vacancies.

Whether people know it or not, the club runs solely on the enthusiasm and passion of the members & leaders. Again, it's a not-for-profit organization run by committed members whose pay amounts to once-a-month dinner & some gas money (and has been $0 lately).

I think most people do realize that, and are grateful for the effort that goes into the club.