Here is a list of Pros & Cons the membership assembled for the bylaw proposal to elect to fill vacancies
Red=Arguments against the proposal
Green=Arguments supporting the proposal
- Mid-season appointments are time-sensitive
- The process might take too long (notify members, get nominations, get bios from candidates, coordinate the election, and for members to decide).
- Appointments aren't always quick either. Laci's replacement took over one month.
- After the February meeting a club vote was put out two days later with the intention of being open for the weekend only.
- Nominations shouldn’t need to take longer than accepting resumes. Board members can even nominate.
- Technology and willing people are available to decrease our typical election timelines.
- USBA held a 2-week election.
- 2020 was held without a President until November.
- BoD uses appointments even when they're not emergencies, not as they were intended. Misuse. Bypassing the voice of the members.
- Examples?
- Back-filling VP uncontested election to president.
- “Promoting” Trophies Rep to VP, then appointing his replacement.
- Jim Wilson appointed September 2020 after many months of inaction.
- Appointments allow BoD to replace a member-elected director.
- Overrides the decision of members.
- Executive Officer positions are best filled from within the board.
- Proposals don’t prevent sitting directors from being nominated. Moot point.
- If true, members will elect from within.
- Not the original intent of the appointment clause.
- Does the BoD intend to change bylaws to remove the ability of members to vote?
- There is no bylaw that requires BoD to fill or “promote” from within.
- The choice of a board member is important enough to be put in front of members.
- It affects race operation, competitive fairness, health of the club, direction of our fees, etc.
- See “Regular Elections” bullet below.
- Members don't know what it takes to perform well in a board role.
- Members don’t understand the roles in-depth or the skills/qualities required to succeed.
- Members are trusted with this task in general elections.
- ALL of the current board members were once simply racers and associate members.
- BoD is qualified and trusted to make appointment selections. They choose the best-suited candidates at the time.
- Any power without oversight is eventually abused.
- Process isn’t even transparent. “Trust the BoD” isn’t enough. Members cannot know if there were better candidates or not.
- Members are trusted to make selections during general elections and there’s no reason to believe they would make poor decisions mid-season.
- Not all BoD members have even been elected, or “trusted” the membership to vote for them.
- The membership has confirmed every one of the last 10 appointees by electing them in the following election
- Regular Elections allow for members to approve of or reject the appointment during a less-critical time.
- Incumbent advantage means appointments are effectively permanent. Challengers, no matter how good of a candidate they are, almost always lose.
- See Term Limits section.
- “Damage” can be done before the general election.
- Appointments help keep detrimental/nefarious people off the board.
- The members pay and their voice should matter. Who decides what is detrimental/nefarious?
- But regular elections give the choice back to members. Are they counting on the incumbent advantage to keep their appointment in power?
- There’s a wealth of untapped management experience in the membership.
- If they’re any good, members will elect them.
- Appointment process is straight out of a legal template.
- That doesn’t mean that it can’t be changed.
- Doesn’t mean we’re using it as intended.
- Other clubs use appointments
- That doesn’t mean it’s the best process for our club.
- Perhaps other clubs don’t have such an extreme incumbent advantage?
- Our club has arguably used this process more than it was intended. Do they do the same?
- People who want offices should volunteer and start campaigning earlier.
- Moot point.
- Has nobody done this in 10+ years? We’re aware of only 1 incumbent ever losing.
- Board appointments often don’t follow the BoD advice of “volunteer beforehand” or “campaign early.”.
- Jeremy Alexander
- Phil Pleiss
- Jason Martinez
- Appointments have not produced better BoD members than elections.
- They create an inappropriate allegiance to the BoD, and not the membership which only voted in some of their peers originally.
Reply With Quote