With uncontained glee, I'm going to tear into tbag's discussion.
Then you really don't approve. That's like saying, "I approve of Gov. Polis, with the modification that he becomes somebody else."
(ok, j/k .. sort of .. but onto the meat)
Board Replacements
Let's see how that would have worked out with a couple of our last unexpected vacancies.
Scenario 1
Laci (sadly) resigns. She's the treasurer with a wealth (!) of financial and banking experience. The treasurer position is a non-racing position. So the "lesser" position (Rick, Nyles, Jeff, me, Shannon, Cindy, Jason, etc.) would be expected to step into that position by giving up racing and becoming an accounting expert. Really? Hmm.. ok, setting aside Tony's modification & going back to the original proposition, the treasurer would be put to a special election by the membership. As Mike K. accurately pointed out, the normal election process is typically 5-6 weeks best case, with nominations, bio generations, member notifications, voting, tally, etc. By then, the previous person in this position is long gone with no chance of helping the new person (who's from outside of the MRA) get up to speed.
Scenario 2
We all remember Carl. That happened in the middle of a race season when VP of Rules and Tech is one of the most active positions in the club. This position requires the person to have the right temperament to deal with rule enforcement while being THE expert on MRA rules and THE expert on all motorcycle mechanics. Additionally, they have to be at the track every Friday afternoon for tech and be able to put their own race program on the back burner for the remainder of the VP R&T term. Again, backing up to the original proposal, we'd be without a VP of R&T for probably 2-3 rounds, which puts a pretty big strain on the remainder of the board (as some of us can attest).
Although I agree with Tony's point (which is an argument against the original proposition), the problems he describes here are no different than during our current end-of-year election process. Maybe we need to address that problem instead.
Theoretically, maybe, but the club would be very hard pressed to get a special election done in 4 weeks in the middle of a race season - which is 1-2 weeks faster that it's done off season. To get even close to that, you'd have to fast track the nomination process AND have no other issues before several people on the board (mostly the secretary) during that time. Hmmm.
My view is that we very well could create more problems than currently exist with either of these approaches.
I suggest taking a step back and more clearly understanding what current problem we're trying to solve.
Additionally, I would want to look at what other race clubs do for board replacement (hint: I know what the AFM does and it is almost a combination of these)
Term Limits
Exactly. To be a little more graphic, all it would take to get a "termed out" person kicked off the board is for one person getting nominated. They don't even need to be voted in because they'll be unopposed.
And if THREE and the Incumbent are nominated, then there's a Rochambeau between the Incumbent and the third nominee as for who remains on the ballot. I'm kinda not joking since in the previous paragraph Tony made the (correct) observation that it "defeats the purpose of giving the members a "choice" and punishes someone for being competent". Why is that "choice" defeated when there's one nominee but somehow it becomes not defeated (and competence not punished) when there are two nominees?
Again, I think I (at least) need to more clearly understand what existing problem we're trying to solve. What is broken or deficient with our current election process?
Finally, this might give me a hint to the answer ..
I will disagree (yet again) with Tony in that the Rider Rep position is actually not the entry level. Years ago we implemented Novice Hours as a way to get new MRA racers integrated into the social fabric of the MRA and in some sense a create a short term apprenticeship. (it also has provided free slave labor for the club .. but I digress ..)
I think both of these suggestions are angling at lowering the barrier to entry into club participation, which is a VERY good goal.
I believe there are better ways to do that, though, than modifying the bylaws for executive replacements or board member expulsion via term limits.