MRA bylaws changes round 2

[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.