MRA bylaws changes round 2

[Yeeker]

I’m glad you posted, Tony. There are some really good thoughts in there, though I still prefer the proposals as-written. Here’s why:

Filling Executive Board Positions (Prez, VPrez, Secy, Treas) mid-term should be, ideally, the Board's responsibility and ideally should be someone from a "lesser board position" (Track Marshall, VP Rules & Tech, New Rider Director, or one of the rider reps) who has been on the board for at least one year. Reasoning is that the membership likely has no idea who would be a good candidate for an executive board position or what the actual roles and responsibilities of the position are to keep the club running. And simply being popular or willing is not the same as being competent.

I believe that the membership is capable of selecting a competent officer. If the membership is capable of choosing a candidate in regular elections, then it’s capable of choosing mid-year. I think that most of us are fairly intelligent and that paying members should choose their leaders in a non-profit club. On top of that, the high rate of member turnover in motorcycle clubs appears to provide incumbents with a huge advantage in elections. I can’t recall an incumbent losing an election in the last 10+ years, which means that appointments are critically important.

Additionally, thrusting someone with absolutely NO prior board experience into an Executive Board position is a recipe for failure. If the Board appoints from within for vacant Executive Board Positions, and the members do a special election to fill the "lesser vacated position" I think that is a much better process and more likely to have a favorable outcome for the club and membership. The variation in "types of jobs" within the board don't connect well with a traditional "progressive board" where each year you move up one notch, but this would be a reasonable modification and ensure "experienced" replacements of the critical board positions.

Your idea of promotion and election of the vacancy has merit. I agree that experience is important, even as I argue that fresh perspectives and checks on power are critical. One of the benefits of trying to limit decade-long terms is to develop multiple people that have experience. In this case, the best option wouldn’t be a rider rep with limited experience, but perhaps the former executive who’s still around the club and not burnt out.

For Non-Executive Board Positions (Track Marshall, VP Rules & Tech, NRD, Rider Reps) I think a special election within 4 weeks would be acceptable. They are important, but not "make or break" roles, and the majority of the responsibilities (or effectively all of the critical responsibilities) occur ON raceday when members and the rest of the Board are present and available to jump in and assist as necessary until the "new guy" is competent.

Agree

The Term limits proposal has language errors. The way it is worded (fewer than two nominations accepted - which is one), if even ONE person other than the incumbent accepts the nomination, the incumbent has to step down. I don't think that's the intent and defeats the purpose of giving the members a "choice". It also punishes someone for being competent in their job and doing it well for a long time. If ONE and the Incumbent both accept, they should both run and let the membership decide. If TWO and the Incumbent all accept, then the Incumbent (at or beyond defined term limits) should step aside and allow the members to choose from the remaining two.

I think the wording is correct AND it matches your description. If only one person accepts a nomination, then the incumbent may also run (exception to term limits). If two candidates accept, then the incumbent must step aside for one term or run for a different position.

My experience is that, after several terms, if a competent opponent would run against an incumbent - in most cases they would gladly step aside. If TWO competent opponents ran, hallelujah!

This sounds right. I think that the many people just don’t want to challenge a sitting officer and the term limit would give members an “excuse” to run for the office. Again, I’d love to see multiple people in the club with the experience of a position. To your point though, getting two candidates to accept is actually a fairly high bar and so the term limits will likely be “bypassed” in all but the most special elections.

Three terms for all but the Rider Reps would be 6 years. Plenty of years of service for most normal folks. Three terms for Rider Reps would be 3 years, which is one year to learn the position, and then two more to perfect it, and have working knowledge of the rest of board so that they could either move up by appointment OR by running for a position if they desire. Rider Rep positions are the MRA's version of "entry level" minimum-wage positions, and a great way to encourage people to get involved in the club without fear for "wrecking the joint" - AND opens up opportunities for competent advancement of folks to higher positions on the board, if they wish to continue to serve after their rider rep term is up. If the vacancies on Executive Board Positions are filled with existing, "junior" board members, that will open up plenty of opportunities for new folks to get involved at lesser positions to get their feet wet.

Agree, but I also think that the selection of an Executive is one of the very most important decisions for the club. That’s why we can’t always entrust it to a few people. We like to believe that corruption, power-consolidation, and self-interest (etc.) couldn’t happen in our club, but I can’t imagine setting ourselves up for it.

Again, I think you have good ideas, but I think there are more benefits as-proposed. Specifically, I think it will result in more involvement of the membership, more experienced people who can assist in a pinch, burden-sharing and less long-term stress of the officers, better representation of riders, higher innovation, less potential for power consolidation, etc. This is what I’d like to see.

[Throttleroller277]

I think the wording is correct AND it matches your description. If only one person accepts a nomination, then the incumbent may also run (exception to term limits). If two candidates accept, then the incumbent must step aside for one term or run for a different position.

With this in place and only 2 new nominations needed, you could easily have two people work together as a form of collusion to simply get someone removed from the Board, and win the election.

Example: You could have one person that wants to Run for the said Board Position, and then he convinces someone else "new to the club" (that no one knows anything about them) to simply get nominated for the position, knowing that the second person would not get voted in, therefor forcing the existing Board Member to step down, and winning an election by default of the Bylaws, rather than a true vote of Choice by the members including the existing Board Member.

Anyone that doesn't think this can or will happen is simply in denial. As we have seen forms of people attempting collusion in other forms throughout the years, whether it be to get someone protested out of race results via teardown, or get people against the Board and/or elections. It is very unfortunate that just like in the Racing itself, some people want to "win" via the rule book, rather than out on the race track actually racing.

As Brewer stated, I don't see where the current process is broken. As it currently is, you can run for a Board Position against other Nominees, and the incumbent, and let the members vote by choice of who is best fit for the position. If the incumbent is not the best fit, someone else will be elected in.

[Jim Brewer]

You could have one person that wants to Run for the said Board Position, and then he convinces someone else "new to the club" (that no one knows anything about them) to simply get nominated for the position, knowing that the second person would not get voted in, therefor forcing the existing Board Member to step down, and winning an election by default of the Bylaws, rather than a true vote of Choice by the members including the existing Board Member.

Jeff's spot on here. In fact the person running for the board position could win without a vote by him/herself nominating someone else who they know would bow out.

No matter how many people you say it'd take to disqualify a termed out member (my rochambeau joke), a small group of people could bypass the election process and take over a board position.

The more I thought about it overnight, the more I'm convinced that any form of forced term limits creates a gateway to an organized corruption attack. Can someone convince me it wouldn't?