FINAL 2020 BYLAW ADDITION PROPOSAL 4.16 Board Member Term Limits

[Fastt Racing]

Proposed bylaw addition to add term-limits to board positions to be added to Section 4:Proposed bylaw addition to add term-limits to board positions to be added to Section 4:

Proposed Wording:
No member of the board of directors shall serve in the same office for more than three consecutive terms as counted from the annual meeting of year 2020. An exception to these term limits will be allowed only in the case where fewer than two nominations are accepted for the specific position.

[Fastt Racing]

Here is a list of Pros & Cons the membership assembled for the bylaw proposal to elect to fill vacancies

Red=Argument against the proposal
Green=Argument in support of the proposal

• People aren't willing to serve.
  
  • About half of candidates run unopposed.
  • Proposal requires 2+ people running to trigger term limits, so lack of candidates is a non-issue.
  • More candidates may run if they don’t feel that challenging the director will look as if they don’t appreciate that director’s performance.
  • More candidates may run if they aren’t up against a historically impossible task. Incumbent advantage.
  • More candidates will run if they didn’t think the BoD dynamic was dysfunctional and/or they would be ineffective serving in that environment.
  
  
• Incumbent advantage effectively means directors can hold office as long as they like.
  
  • Incumbent advantage exists everywhere. We can't solve it.
    
    • Term limits solves what nominations alone cannot overcome
    • Many competent people have run and lost. An incumbent has almost always won.
  
  
• Without fear of losing board positions, those positions may receive minimal preservation.
• Term limits take away the ability of the members to choose a proven candidate for the office.
  
  • He/She may run for a different role.
    
    • Perhaps one with more responsibility.
    
    
  • Temporarily. He/She may again run for the same role in the following term.
  • Why is this a BoD concern for Term Limits, but not for Appointments?
  
  
• Unsatisfactory directors can be removed by board.
  
  • Yes, but they have been typically replaced by appointment, bypassing membership vote.
  
  
• Shorter terms will likely lead to less burn-out, more consistent enthusiasm from the BoD, and better role preservation.
  
  • Less burnout may lead to directors fulfilling their term commitment and not requiring the club to fill unexpected vacancies (Jeremy, Rick, Jen, Brad, etc).
  
  
• Resignations may be easier to fill because there will be more people who know the role, have performed it recently, and aren't burnt out. Taking a term or two break is healthy.
• Directors may not feel obligated to run if they know there are also other previous directors in the club.
• New people can improve upon certain aspects of the director’s role.
  
  • New people performing a role can also be less efficient/effective at certain aspects.
    
    • If the previous way of doing it was better, it’s unlikely that the new director would choose the poorer method.
  
  
• Different people on board can lead to new ideas and more innovation.
• Experience is also important. When possible, it is better to “promote” for “executive officer” positions.
  
  • The rest of the board can lend advice.
  • Fresh enthusiasm is also very important.
  • Tiffany, Jeremy, Lacy, and Scott Rybarik were appointed without previous BoD experience.

• Reduces the accumulation of power and control.
• One (potentially poor) candidate would require the sitting director to step down.
  
  • False. It would take 2+ candidates to trigger term limits.
  
  
• Two+ candidates could collude to require a sitting director to step down. This could be someone detrimental or nefarious.
  
  • Anyone can nominate alternative good candidates or known candidates.
  • Board could also collude to appoint someone that they want but the membership doesn't.
  • Who should decide what is detrimental/nefarious?
  
  
• If a competent opponent would challenge an incumbent, they would likely step down. No need for term limits.
  
  • There is evidence that this hasn’t happened.
  • The incumbent should not need to approve of their successor, only the voting body should.
  
  
• There’s a wealth of untapped management experience in the membership.
• Need to be very careful what we add to the bylaws as there could be unintended consequences and they’re hard to correct.
  
  • Also need to be careful what’s left out of the bylaws, especially when it may allow for the possibility of abuse of power.

[Jim Brewer]

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 ...

MRA bylaws changes round 2

[Fastt Racing]

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!!