View Poll Results: Should the MRA hold elections to fill BoD member vacancies?

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, The MRA membership should elect BoD as first choice

    3 37.50%
  • No, The BoD should appoint BoD members without a membership vote

    5 62.50%
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: FINAL 2020 MRA BYLAW PROPOSAL 4.11 & 5.4 Board Vacancy Elections

  1. #1
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    494

    FINAL 2020 MRA BYLAW PROPOSAL 4.11 & 5.4 Board Vacancy Elections

    CHANGE PROPOSAL #1 INCLUDES ARTICLES 4.11 & 5.4
    Proposed changes to MRA bylaws for BoD vacancies.
    Current Wording:
    4.11 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors may be filled by appointment by the remaining Board of Directors. A Director appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve until his or her successor is appointed for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office.

    Proposed Wording:
    4.11 Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors will require a special election of the members which shall occur within 4 weeks of the vacancy. A Director elected to fill a vacancy shall serve for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office, and his or her successor is elected. If no member accepts a nomination, the vacancy may be filled by appointment by the remaining Board of Directors A Director appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve until his or her successor is appointed for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office.



    Current Wording:
    5.4 Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or otherwise may be filled by the Board of Directors for the unexpired portion of the term.

    Proposed Wording:
    5.4 Vacancies. A vacancy in any office because of death, resignation, removal, disqualification or otherwise will require a special election of the members which shall occur within 4 weeks of the vacancy. An Officer elected to fill a vacancy shall serve for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office, and his or her successor is elected. If no member accepts a nomination, the vacancy may be filled by appointment by the remaining Board of Directors. An Officer appointed to fill a vacancy shall serve until his or her successor is appointed for the unexpired term of his or her predecessor in office.

    Last edited by Fastt Racing; 3 Weeks Ago at 01:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    494
    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.

    Last edited by Fastt Racing; 3 Weeks Ago at 01:15 PM.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Amateur Jim 'smooth' Brewer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Loveland, CO
    Posts
    368
    If you're reading this thread, please be aware that the proposals written here and the associated pro/con list is not a balanced view and was created solely by the people creating the proposed changes.

    Although similar, these are NOT what is being considered with the email vote.

    For the exact proposals under consideration and an open discussion by current and past MRA members, use the links provided in the voting email or go directly to the thread ...


  4. #4
    Senior Member Amateur
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Westminster, CO
    Posts
    494
    Jim Brewer's above comment is no longer accurate. The post is updated with all of the correct information. This proposal is Exactly what is being voted on with the electronic ballot link that everyone was emailed out.

    The purpose of this thread is to give a place for discussion of each proposal individually.
    The other thread seen in this "general discussion section of this forum" has the two different proposals lumped together, which didn't promote proper debate of each proposal separately.

    We have compiled a lot of input from a lot of members of the MRA into this matter. Feel free to add questions, and constructive opinions that are directly related to this proposal, so we have a well rounded discussion.
    Thanks for all your input!!
    Dennis Stowers MRA #151
    Absolute Moto-Michelin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •