MRA bylaws changes round 2

[Jim Brewer]

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.

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

[WolFeYeZ]

Hey Jim, this is amazing! I am sorry to create more work, but any chance these can be separated? They are definitively two different issues and having one fail because of bad sentiment for the other would be unfortunate.

Also, what is the best way to reach you Jim?

[The GECCO]

I would say no to both of these.

Regarding the voting to fill vacancies - if a vacancy happens during a crucial part of the season it may not be in the best interest of the club to have to take the time to go through a formal voting process.

Regarding the term limits AND the voting to fill vacancies - the majority of the elections are for candidates running unopposed. The fact is that there simply isn't a large number of people even WILLING to serve their club. If someone can get elected for a fourth term or is willing to be appointed, let them serve!

[WolFeYeZ]

I would say no to both of these.

Regarding the voting to fill vacancies - if a vacancy happens during a crucial part of the season it may not be in the best interest of the club to have to take the time to go through a formal voting process.

Regarding the term limits AND the voting to fill vacancies - the majority of the elections are for candidates running unopposed. The fact is that there simply isn't a large number of people even WILLING to serve their club. If someone can get elected for a fourth term or is willing to be appointed, let them serve!

-From what has been seen so far, the appointment process for a position isn't exactly quick either. The latest appointment took over a month, others have been longer. One might argue an election could be speedier, if a good timeline is kept. Also, what happened immediately after the elections this last year? We all voted, then someone was appointed to a position we had just voted on.

-Here are the nominations from last year, its seems there are a large number of people that wish to serve the club. The wording isn't exactly clear, but the way I read it, 2 other people would have to run for a position for a term limit to kick in at 3 years.

[mkionka]

I voted no to both. I agree the last thing the club needs is to scramble to notify everyone, get nominations, bios from candidates, and coordinate the election in the middle of the race season if a board member departs unexpectedly. To keep things running, maximum flexibility is needed to get a qualified person filling the vacancy at least until the next regularly scheduled election.

For the positions with multi-year terms where the board member departed with more than 1 year remaining in their term, I'd be OK if the change was worded such that the position would then be included in the next general election.

I don't see a need for term limits, either. Why kick out very experienced people where the majority of the club feels they are doing a good job? If they aren't doing a good job, vote them out.



Mike #479

[T Baggins]

I approve with the following modifications.

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. 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.

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.

Note that there IS a distinction between Executive and Other Board positions in the Bylaws if I recall. I just don't remember the exact language. If not, then the distinction could be part of the update process.

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. 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! 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.

That's my opinion.

[WolFeYeZ]

For the positions with multi-year terms where the board member departed with more than 1 year remaining in their term, I'd be OK if the change was worded such that the position would then be included in the next general election.

Great idea, maybe that will be taken up if this fails

If they aren't doing a good job, vote them out.

A member went back and did an analysis over the past 10 years (edited, see later posts). In that time the incumbent who already holds the position has NEVER lost an election. The barriers to entry are huge. Therefore when someone has been appointed, they serve on the board until they wish to move on.

[The GECCO]

A member went back and did an analysis over the past 15 years or so. In that time the incumbent who already holds the position has NEVER lost an election. The barriers to entry are huge. Therefore when someone has been appointed, they serve on the board until they wish to move on.

Losing an election is not a "barrier to entry".

[Yeeker]

Regarding the voting to fill vacancies - if a vacancy happens during a crucial part of the season it may not be in the best interest of the club to have to take the time to go through a formal voting process.

It will be important to get it done quickly and efficiently, but the choice of a board member is important enough to put in front of the members. I think that the technology we have make all of this possible.

Regarding the term limits AND the voting to fill vacancies - the majority of the elections are for candidates running unopposed. The fact is that there simply isn't a large number of people even WILLING to serve their club.

The way it's written, if nobody new wants the job, then the office holder can remain in office. So I don't see any problem here. Besides, I think the lack of candidates is often because nobody wants to be the person who challenges the current office holder. Challenging doesn't mean that the office holder is doing a bad job, but people can be afraid that it sends that message. I would love to see a new person come in, be mentored by the former office holder, make small improvements to the way the job is done, then have the previous office holder take the job back for the following term and adopt those improvements. Then we also have a capable person available in case the person in office "gets hit by a bus." I think this only makes the club stronger.

[Jim Brewer]

After some offline discussion ...

Board overview of the suggested bylaw changes
· Both sets of these proposed bylaw changes have nothing to do with racing motorcycles. If your interest in the MRA is only racing motorcycles, the board recommends:

· You vote for the first set of changes.
· As your interest permits, you follow or become involved in discussions of the second set of changes.

· The first set of suggested changes are from the board.

· They are either administrative or required by insurance.
· The board considers these no-brainers.

· The second set has been proposed by a group of members.

· The board believes there is ample time for discussion of these.
· In the board’s opinion, there are loopholes and/or cumbersome implementation details that need to be discussed before members should vote on them.
· There is a wealth of examples, pro/con considerations, and precedence from other race clubs that should be explored.
· At this point, the board recommends discussing these on social media, on forums.mra-racing.org, or through any communication means you feel comfortable with.
· The board will come out with voting recommendations on these in the next few months.

[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.

[GiXXXer Junkie]

In the 3 years that I have been on the Board, it seems like the same small group have consistently made it their mission to disrupt, protest, and publicly criticize virtually every move the Board of Directors make. Personally, I'm disgusted at how certain groups like to portray the Board. While parts of this proposal may have some merit, false claims based on widespread misinformation, solicited to people with no knowledge of incidents involved, and presented by people who have a history of dishonest activity within the club, does not necessarily scream "this comes from a good place". I know how hard this Board of Directors works for the members of the MRA, how much they sacrifice as volunteers, the countless hours spent away from family trying to resolve problems that arise within the club (which has been a non-stop endeavor this season). We've had to deal with Pueblo giving away our date, AMA sanctioning, Coronavirus and the constant new challenges it presents daily, all while having to suddenly replace our Treasurer. All this before the season gets underway. So when

I see snide posts on a public forum, or

members send me screenshots from private groups who diminish what the Board does, I take it very personally. I am damned proud of this Board. This is a Board that busts their asses because we care about our members.

Bottom line, this is a MOTORCYCLE RACING club, yet more time is spent on issues that have ZERO to do with racing motorcycles. At some point you have to look at the source of these issues and ask yourself, "Is this really coming from a good place?" That said, I would encourage you to vote to disapprove these bylaw amendments as they are written, it leaves an enormous opportunity for catastrophic failure of the club.

[Jim Brewer]

With uncontained glee, I'm going to tear into tbag's discussion.

I approve with the following modifications.

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

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.

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).

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. Additionally, thrusting someone with absolutely NO prior board experience into an Executive Board position is a recipe for failure.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ..

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.

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.

[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?

[Jim Brewer]

I have moved some of the previous posts in this thread to a new location so that we might keep focused on the bylaw changes proposed here.

If anyone feels a need to diverge from this discussion, please feel free to start your own discussion thread. Otherwise, let's continue with ideas!

[Phil795]

I say NO to both of these proposals and to me it's a really simple decision. It would make it easier for someone that is detrimental to the MRA to get on the board.

[TD675]

I also voted "No" to both of these changes. Having sat on the BOD for a few years myself, I have first hand experience with the election process and with appointing people to fill a vacant role. The two that I specifically remember were appointing Jeremy to the VP position and Laci to the Treasurer position. Neither of them had any kind of preference points over anyone else who interviewed, they were simply the best fit for the position in the club's time of need, and we interviewed multiple people in each of these circumstances. Then, the next election cycle came along in November and each of them were elected by the membership to continue to fill that role on the BOD.


If we are mid-season and a position needs to be filled asap, I believe the BOD is more than qualified to make that decision. That is kind of why the members have elected those people to those positions to make those decisions. It's all in an effort to keep us racing as seamlessly as possible, and I am pretty sure that's why we are all here...to race a motorcycle. Members trust the board to handle money, make schedules, deposits, contracts, solve interpersonal racer issues, make calls on race day, find gate staff, find corner staff, cancel races if need be, reschedule races if need be, make hard calls on rule book and bike legality issues, and a plethora of other no less important things. But somehow they aren't trustworthy enough to find a viable temporary solution to fill a vital role so that we can continue to keep racing until the end of the year when we can all breathe and run a proper election?


It ain't broke, don't fix it.






I kind of liked the idea of the term limits and if I had seen elections go any other way I may have voted for this. But the fact is that it is already difficult to find people willing to take on a board position, then we are going to take away someone who might be doing a very good job for the chance at someone new? It's been my experience that if someone is not filling the position to a satisfactory level, they either leave on their own or are removed. When I held a position, I openly encouraged interested parties to run against me and I have seen the same from several current board members. I do understand that it is very difficult to win against an incumbent, but I also know that it has been VERY close (like within two or three votes). I think that if a sitting BOD member is doing their job that poorly, they will be removed by either the board or the members. I don't see a reason to forcefully remove a sitting member who is doing a satisfactory job.

[jplracing]

I have also voted no.

I have read through the suggestions and I simply can't see what problem we are trying to fix with these proposals.

If you are voting for term limits because the incumbent is a barrier to winning ...I think you really need to try harder to win rather than manipulate a rule to make it easier.

As for the appointment process...again I don't see a problem When was the last time a "bad" appointment was made? Not a person you didn't like but one that didn't do the job.

[Ducdreamin]

I voted no.

I would urge each member to consider what is being proposed and why.

Term limits already exist in the form of our elections. To claim that someone doesn't have a fair shot at being elected because they're not the incumbent is a juvenile excuse. That is taking credit away from our members and saying that they don't know how to vote their mind and their conscience. If I were running for a position, first of all, it wouldn't start a month before the election. I would bust my behind, all the time. I would help the club whenever possible. I would interact with the members of the club and the board of directors and build a rapport. I wouldn't be standoffish, antagonistic, jump up and try to get elected and then claim that the system is unfair. It's about helping the whole club, not just a few members.

With regard to the board appointing a replacement when a position is vacated, we try to do what's best for the club. It's not a popularity contest. It is about filling the open position with the most qualified applicant who can do the job and hopefully do it well. As stated in many other responses, it's a short-term appointment. If the club is unhappy, the election is only a few months off.

Cindy Wulf #615
Rider Rep - P/R & Events

[milehizx6r]

My opinion is if you want to run for a board position and feel you are qualified then prove yourself! Don't just show up and race on weekends. Offer to assist the club on and off thectrack. Help out with Airfence, offer to help at off track events, offer your expertise with tech, give some assistance with Siper Street! All I see here is a bunch of people who want to sit on their Ass, not give a helping hand and volunteer to show your interest in the club! If you want a raise at work, do you prove your worth and go above and beyond your duties or just do the necessary. For years I've always been available to help where needed. I guess I'm not the type to sit around and bitch about things and expect changes!
I Vote NO on these changes!!

[WolFeYeZ]

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)

I have taken a step back the last couple of days from what has turned into an argument in order to allow the board to do their thing, but I wanted to share a quick snippet from what seems to be our sister club over in Utah. This was sent out via email on 4/2/2020, with the special election ending about 2 weeks later on 4/18/2020. Jim, any chance you have data on the quickest appointment to a board position? Most I have seen have been 4-6 weeks, but as I am just a member I am not privy to all the goings on in the MRA. Overall I am personally excited to see some dialogue on these issues, though I wish it could be done without personal attacks. Enjoy folks

[Jim Brewer]

Jim, any chance you have data on the quickest appointment to a board position?

It varies depending on the position, the available candidates, and whether it's in the middle of race season or not. Probably the quickest I can remember is 3 days with the replacement of the treasurer in July 2015. Chris Papajohn - a former treasurer - was appointed when our previous treasurer resigned.

4-6 weeks without a treasurer in July would be pretty horrible. It'd be hard to tell the cornerworkers, ambulance crew, & RoR racers that we'll pay them as soon as we get through the election & onboarding process.

[blaircsf]

A replacement election wouldn't need to take 4-6 weeks. After the February meeting a club vote was put out two days later with the intention of being open for the weekend only. With the technology available these things can occur quite quickly when needed. I'm fairly certain people (who are already motivated to assist the club) could accomplish nominations, bio/resume submission, etc faster than the time frame of our normal elections if required.

I also don't understand the argument that a club wide election would make it easier for someone with negative intentions.

Looking back over elections from recent years I would say the number of uncontested positions is around 50 percent. Based on earlier replies people argue "see there just aren't enough people interested in helping out". An uncontested position doesn't show lack of anyone interested though. I have talked with a number of people over the years who would be interested and either have run a couple of times and then stop, or who just look at trends and don't run. These are people who easily have skills / knowledge / insight to contribute to the club and are doing their best to help the club, but it's not hard to watch a couple elections and see the trend. I don't think it's a coincidence that spots 'open' from retirement or promotion are easily the positions that see the most candidates. With the proposed wording if there really isn't anyone interested than nothing changes.

As was stated above if you have people who have been involved and aren't completely burnt out when they step down they become ideal candidates for unexpected vacancies.

I think the MRA is a great club, I also think there is always room for improvement. I think these changes would lead to more involvement by members (not an evil takeover by a member who managed to convince the whole club they are great).

[Jim Brewer]

A replacement election wouldn't need to take 4-6 weeks. After the February meeting a club vote was put out two days later with the intention of being open for the weekend only. With the technology available these things can occur quite quickly when needed. I'm fairly certain people (who are already motivated to assist the club) could accomplish nominations, bio/resume submission, etc faster than the time frame of our normal elections if required.

Normally, people aren't positioning their lives so they're ready to raise their hands at a moment's notice should a position open up. To be fair, I think it's important to have a nomination period so people have more than a few minutes to decide if they want to make such a commitment. Additionally, most of the club members don't cast their votes the same instant they receive their ballots.

I also don't understand the argument that a club wide election would make it easier for someone with negative intentions.

Personally, I was applying that argument only to term limited board positions. Nobody has offered a rebuttal to my statement that it creates a gateway to corruption.

Based on earlier replies people argue "see there just aren't enough people interested in helping out".

You're going to have to show me where someone said that. I looked back over all of the responses and I didn't find that quote.

but it's not hard to watch a couple elections and see the trend.

Do say more about that - what trend are you talking about? AFAIK, all the voting in the MRA is open and fair. Is there some undercurrent that you're seeing with the annual elections?

As was stated above if you have people who have been involved and aren't completely burnt out when they step down they become ideal candidates for unexpected vacancies.

I can say the vast majority of people that resign/retire from the board are either fried to a crisp, or have some major personal circumstance getting in the way. I say this because serving on the MRA board can be hugely rewarding but also can be profoundly frustrating.

Whether people know it or not, the club runs solely on the enthusiasm and passion of the members & leaders. Again, it's a not-for-profit organization run by committed members whose pay amounts to once-a-month dinner & some gas money (and has been $0 lately).

Thanks for your feedback, Blair. Honestly, though, if you don't think there are members with nefarious intentions, you're not looking closely enough.