Questions on Bylaws

[Hostile]

Luc if I read your explanation right the general
members still have little or no power to change anything.

Skeeter

[Granger73]

What harm would there be if the word, Substantive, was removed? I think that it is a mistake to bundle a substantive change with a procedural or administrative change. A substantive change must be handled differently than an administrative or procedural change. It should require some input from members. By definition, it is a change that could have a major impact on the membership.

[MoparBoyy]

Luc if I read your explanation right the general
members still have little or no power to change anything.

Skeeter

members elect the presidents of the region. the president is held accountable for how he/she votes.

way more power than any member of VCA. Here in FL as a member I was not even allowed to vote for the regional president.

[BlknBlu]

same with Crossroads Region.

Bruce

[XSnake]

While I agree that giving members more control and voting rights will complicate things a bit, it is the same thing for a "government of the peoples by the peoples, for the peoples " it is a lot more complicated and costly than a dictatorship but the advantages far out weight the inconveniences.

Having a 35-40 person vote is a far cry from a dictatorship.

You ( Management) are asking Members to trust you, the least you could do is to return the same favor to the Members and giving them the rights and duties to elect you, amend the bylaws, remove officers and not to conduct ANY business in a secret way, regardless of the reasons.
If some confidential information need to be discussed, I can give some ideas on ho to do so without depriving the members of their right to know.

I disagree. If there is a relationship built between the club and SRT and SRT requires some info (new ACR, ring record attempt, etc...) to be kept secret it must be. Period. If the BOD is trying to keep something secret that shouldn't be it will come out. See the Lee Stubberfield Letter of Doom thread on the Alley for an example.

Also ,the bylaws state that members are welcome to attend any "Open" meetings, BUT only IF SPACE PERMIT
That need to go, if so many members want to attend a meeting that space could be an issue, the duty of the Board/Officers should be to make room for them, not to exclude them..

I agree with you on this

[Janni]

how does one plan a meeting and potentially rent space (which is costly) and then have it available for anywhere from between 40 members (the total BoD) to 1500+?

[Viper Girl]

how does one plan a meeting and potentially rent space (which is costly) and then have it available for anywhere from between 40 members (the total BoD) to 1500+?

Ez... Tent City... We stop setting up tents when we see the headlights of the last car.

M_sp4_inset_ender_Tents_sm.jpg

[luc]

how does one plan a meeting and potentially rent space (which is costly) and then have it available for anywhere from between 40 members (the total BoD) to 1500+?

Janni:

Your rhetorical question is a little bit disingenuous, nobody in their right mind would expect such a large numbers of members wanting to be at a meeting, and appear to be 180* apart from some comments made by Maurice ( and other) regarding, for the lack of better word, the lack of members interest in the operation, including voting for National officers or other, of the club.

[Janni]

luc,

We're sharing things as real time as we can. We're on the forums. We're actively working with the Presidents and asking them to share with THEIR regions. We've had more communications with the Presidents in 3 months than I saw from the VCA in the past 6+ years.

As an FYI - the VCA also offered open meetings to the members - several took them up on the invitation. However, they then relied on the "Executive Session" in order to shut out observers and sport the truly bad behavior - so I am keenly aware of the abuses of that possibility. I was also on the receiving end of being sworn at, fist pounded on tables and having someone just about come across the table at me. the entire BoD was there. So I am sensitive to the misuse of "Executive Session"

It's not the bylaws that promote bad behavior- it's bad people. It's an environment of arrogance and tops down instead of what we've fostered with both words and deed - which is an inclusive environment where we hold ourselves up and open to scrutiny of the Regional Presidents - and WE serve THEM.

I expect a lot of our meetings, initially, to be done via conference call. It's cheaper and more practical. I also expect bylaws to be looked at only a couple times a year. So - we should announce that - gather feedback - and make the conference call information available to a member upon specific request to attend the meeting (via the regional presidents is my guess) and then we'll address space at a face to face when we get to that point. I would say that every effort to accommodate members will be made - but it has to be "within reason". I'd be really upset if we had a lot of requests for attendance, and space was booked to accommodate and ended up being unnecessary - so again - we'll have to have a somewhat balanced approach. Possibly - we webinar any in person meeting, too.

Ultimately - I think we can utilize technology to accommodate requests. We've already discussed the webinar possibility with the Presidents.

[Hostile]

Janni
The only way to control bad people who have moved into

positions of power is with strong bylaws for the members.

Our bylaws need to provide a strong leash on the leadership

or we are back to the old car club.

Skeeter

[Granger73]

Trust but verify. The bylaws are the means that make verification possible.

[Granger73]

Article X Section 2 says

Additionally, fifty (50) Active MembersPrimary may propose an amendment by submitting a written petition to the National Secretary andsigned by all of the proposing members. Any amendment proposal shall contain an explanation(not to exceed 300 words) of the need and justification for the requested amendment. A BylawCommittee may also be formed to review and make recommendations for changes to the Board.

In this instance a simple solution would be that any amendment proposed by a member petition would have to be voted on by the full membership. If the BoD were opposed to it, the membership vote could override the BoD.

[Resident Alien]

^ I second the motion. Great "checks-and-balances" suggestion. If it's not adopted outright we can probably try to find 48 more members to test the efficacy of this very same Article X Section 2. Hilarity will ensue if it's ultimately thrown out.

[Janni]

^ I second the motion. Great "checks-and-balances" suggestion. If it's not adopted outright we can probably try to find 48 more members to test the efficacy of this very same Article X Section 2. Hilarity will ensue if it's ultimately thrown out.

not opposed to this at all - but I would suggest that if we're going to force a full member vote to override the 40 or so member Board of Directors (who have to review and determine if the proposed bylaw amendment has merit) that the signature threshold is raised to a level that tests the membership interest- I'd suggest it be based on a percentage of the overall members. There's a certian level of work involved to query the membership - it cannot just be done online - so there is time and expense for both the club and the Board.

I'd suggest this be the first proposal (or one of the first) for the ByLaw committee to address. Trying to form that before end of the month - stay tuned - and start thinking about the mechanics of administering this / suggested writing of the amendment.

thoughts?

[Resident Alien]

not opposed to this at all - but I would suggest that if we're going to force a full member vote to override the 40 or so member Board of Directors (who have to review and determine if the proposed bylaw amendment has merit) that the signature threshold is raised to a level that tests the membership interest- I'd suggest it be based on a percentage of the overall members. There's a certian level of work involved to query the membership - it cannot just be done online - so there is time and expense for both the club and the Board.

I'd suggest this be the first proposal (or one of the first) for the ByLaw committee to address. Trying to form that before end of the month - stay tuned - and start thinking about the mechanics of administering this / suggested writing of the amendment.

thoughts?

Agree 100%, it sounds simpler to suggest than actually implement but there should be some reasonable way to do so. There should be some minimal threshold of member participation on such a vote. VOA referendum

[MoparBoyy]

Luc.. if you want a vote so badly, join the club and participate with your region. Here in Central/North FL I have discussed issues with people and voted accordingly. Most members aren't that involved so I make the choice of whats best for the club, I would LOVE more people who want to be active in everything thats going on.

Starting this region from nothing sucks, its been a ton of work with so far zero payoffs, but they will come. You gotta have faith.

[slysnake]

However, they then relied on the "Executive Session" in order to shut out observers and sport the truly bad behavior - so I am keenly aware of the abuses of that possibility. I was also on the receiving end of being sworn at, fist pounded on tables and having someone just about come across the table at me. the entire BoD was there. So I am sensitive to the misuse of "Executive Session"

Somewhere in the above discourse it is stated that the present leadership will not allow the bad things that happened at the VCA happen here. And I believe that is true. It was also true at the VCA for many years. However, the present leadership may/will not always be here. That's why it's important to have some controls set up. I think having the region presidents as members of the board is a great step forward. I also think there needs to be some kind of recall provision available to the members.

I also believe substantial bylaw changes and officer elections should be voted on by the membership. I disagree with the idea that there needs to be some kind of quota on the number of people that vote. Set the elections at a specific day each time and count those that vote period. Do it on line. Use an email or pm ballot, that's the same as a roll call vote. If only 10% of the membership wants to vote, so be it. The others had their chance. There is talk about the electoral college here.... really? When you vote for Mayor or Governor they take who ever votes period. There is no quota.

As far as the "executive session" provision..... You can see why that raises red flags. Again, it was said that we wouldn't let that happen here. And I believe the present leadership is honest in that belief. But what about when somebody gains control that is less than honorable?

[Hostile]

What slysnake said X2

Skeeter

[Wot!]

This awesome. Lets not forget that not long ago none of us would have been able to have this conversation online. I really like hearing all the different opinions our members have.

No matter what is done, not everyone will be happy.

Overall I feel the members have more say than at any time in the past now that the BOD is made up of the region presidents. To me this is a great balance and if each region is run as it should be the region presidents should be voting on behalf of their members. That is why I liked the idea of all votes being public. Members can hold their local president accountable. I expect the members in my region to do so. Although I suspect less than half will know what is happening as they don't all visit the website or read all my lengthy emails. I do my best to make sure they are informed.

Lets keep hearing what you think. This is how things get improved.

[luc]

+1 on Skeeter and Slysnake

I do believe that, even if some of them come with a lot a baggage, the present leadership is trying to do a good and honest work.
That say, the way the bylaws are set up the national officers are always going to come from the BoD rank and because the BoD elect them and that there is NO term limits, this is a "incestuous" relation that almost guarrantee that no "regular" member can ever become a National officer.

Let's remember why Some of the present officers split from VCA and created this club. It was not because they reacted to a major issue between the VCA and regular members ( censorship could come to mind) but rather due to some serious issues and fighting BETWEEN the TOP of the VCA.
Sorry if some peoples don't like to hear the truth but it's exactly what happened..
To avoid any chance of having a repeat of the VCA disaster, Regular members need to have a lot more DIRECT control on THEIR club. That mean election, recall, bylaws, etc

Wot: you are 100% right, by allowing such thread/post, the VOA is certainly going in the right direction

[SmoknTires]

Luc, I was indeed there, through several regimes. I can tell you there was more to it. But relative to your specific points (and I agree with them), I will also say that NO bylaws can save you if people choose to do the wrong things - you can't account for all the catastrophes that can happen. It's similar to the idea that if we make enough laws in this world (which the US is getting good at) that we can head off all problems. The reality is that often it means that the issues will become more complex, they'll depend more on lawyers, and those not in the loop will have a harder time keeping up with the details. It's one of the reasons the bylaws were cut down a lot, and made a lot simpler.

I love this conversation as it introduces where the real problem is. You hit the nail on the head and I think all people would probably agree on what you're trying to say. But the problem that I think you're all discussing is not the "what" we should do, it's the "how" to do it that is the tough part. And that's what some of the people above tried to describe.

In reading the posts I do also want to make one general statement, of which usually only those who volunteer for positions in the club would know. Many people will complain about things, because everyone will have an opinion - but few step up for major responsibilities and they won't always be there when the problems happen (on a daily basis). And I will be the first to say that is a true challenge (but not a surprising one if you're close to the work that is done on a daily basis). We all have opinions and will voice them but it's a lot of work on the back end to make that theory work. That's why we need to keep things simple. I say that only to build some tolerance, as I don't want all the people who made decisions to feel that they're being criticized, as it'll happen no matter what. I'll also say we need to learn from the past, but not be so wound up in the mistakes of others that it affects so many tings in the future. With that said, I'll also chime in on the specific topics as I think I can shed light on where the real issue is, because I agree with the initial point made.

The term limit was actually put in our first version. However, after debating with the group there were just as many valid reasons otherwise. Here is the main issue, while it will mandate the turnover of any "bad" people in the future (which in terms of likelihood is small), it will also force the turnover of good people (who may be willing to continue to do the job - and that will be highly likely). Even on a regional level this is true. I would never set term limits in my region as it would never have build a strong club if we would get the benefit of peoples skills & leadership for a max of 2 to 4 years. The idea is that people who do a good job should be kept aboard and those who don't should be shown the door. You'll go through officers too quickly, you'll have less stability because you'll keep reinventing the wheel, and you'll be playing musical chairs and soon have too small of a pool to elect from - and you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel sooner. As big as the club may seem, there aren't many people willing to take on national (even some regional) positions. That's the reality. So as much as you need to protect, you also need to help foster the growth by not stifling productive people or efforts.

And I'll clarify on the past without getting into specific incidents. The reason this happened before is 1) The circle of people who controlled all this were a small handful and 2) Board members with other positions were given two votes so that can skew the election based on their individual will (or bias), and being such a small group - that's very easy to happen. 3) The President had "ultimate power" and plenty of flexibility to do what he wanted without much approval. In the VOA each voice will be heard once, and instead of a handful, you have almost 40 people from around the world. And of those people, all of them are regional presidents who have a stake in the game (not "directors" who ended up being appointed). Lastly, the officers were stripped of any significant individual power.

So that's a great starting point. Bullet proof no. Balanced with good protections, yes.

So here's the real issue. I think everyone agrees to put power in the hands of members and to keep the "bad guys" out. And there's no one against making it as fair and foolproof as possible. I think the place this conversation gets complicated and begins getting confused is HOW you reasonably do what is being suggested. Good points are raised here - have members own it. I like it. But how? We need to go through steps 2-80 to make sure it works - and then along that course you'll also see how many people start to not agree with you. And I think that's where some of the posters are cautioning.

I like the message and the thought. It's not the issue that I think needs debate, it's the process. Let's get some ideas on that. I saw mentioned of having members at board meetings, not a problem, but when the reality of how to do that was raised, someone jumped on the person trying to explain why that doesn't work. Let's not do that.

Just like everything else that seems so easy, but is actually quite difficult... We all agree on cleaner air, we don't agree on how hard to work to get there. We all agree on not letting bad people have guns, but we don't agree on gun control. the list goes on forever. We're all agreeing on clean air and keeping guns in the hands of the bad guys, but I think the process is the tough part. I like the discussion, but let's move it to step 2 and talk about how. That's why you'll see people begin to disagree with you. That's the tough part. And then when you open it to 2500 members, THEN you'll see why you need a smaller group to do it.

Good conversation. Just want to foster a productive discussion and provide some detail that I think will make a difference.

[SNKEBIT]

If somebody does a good job at national level and members are happy, why would you get rid of them if they're willing to keep doing it? That is just plain stupid. There are not enuff people out there with the needed time to spare from their daily "real" lives to devote all the time needed to run this club. It's a car club, not a professional political job.
I also agree that the voting for the national positions should be held through electronic ballot, by the members, if you don't vote, you can't bitch. If you aren't computer literate,,, get with the program. The world is changing, you need to get on board. Same process that works for our local region.

[AZTVR]

Some of the responses to luc's original questions seem self-serving. The most egregious is the comment on term limits. Why should the current BOD care if there are term limits?

And I would add that I believe that the most sensical comments made by Alex are about term limits. In a social club, I agree that it is NOT a good idea to have term limits when you have 40 elected people electing the national officers. I do agree that the pool of willing candidates is likely very small, Who in their right mind would want to volunteer to be a national officer? LOL ! I'd be very surprised that there are more than 10 in 3000 that would do it.

To cover the concerns of some, I do like the idea of having the capability of a recall, or vote of no confidence by members directly. Say that a vote would take the signing of a petition by 30% of the membership. The "signing" of which would have to be in writing by US mail so that it is not a cavalier clicking of a button on a computer. The petition is the responsibility of the petitioners. The vote to recall an officer would have to have 75% of the members mail paper ballots, and 60% of the ballots have to be in favor of the recall.

Now, consider, if tht had been in place at the VCA, would the former president of the VCA have been voted out of office? I doubt that enough members would have been interested in following through because, being a social club, it just doesn't impact their life in any significant way. It is not like a government that affects your taxes or laws.

[Janni]

Re: "a regular member" can't be president. 100% wrong. Easiest path - run for local regional Pres. Then - you re automatically eligible for running for National President.

the first litmus test of leadership will be electability at the local level. Then - as President - you will be on the Board of Directors of the National club. At that point - you will work side by side with the voting team for National President. If you come in, and light the world on fire with leadership capabilities, good ideas, and take on the responsibility to implement them (and work well with the team) RUN and be elected. I think that is pretty straightforward. Elimination of the "middle management" layer fixed A LOT ofproblems with defining the eligible pool, allowing more member input, making the election process of the BoD fair- since no one is appointing a large majority of the board, etc.

It's about a one year investment. And it gives you time to settle in - learn who's who, have an understanding of the club (things like budget, current and future issues, fundraising, membership, etc) I think that's a pretty easy and definable path for a "regular member". I also think that having the larger board - who is WORKING together with all the candidates makes a more informed decision on the person's capabilities and style vs a popular vote (2 words for you - Barack Obama).

Remember- the members are electing 90% of the National Board DIRECTLY. And there is very little power difference between a Board member and a National Officer.

just an aside- Skeeter - have you spoken to Tony P on your bylaw recommendations? He's a good conduit and your direct representative on the National Board.

[Janni]

I always get nervous when management feels the need to draft multi-page memos that opine in an effort to "educate" the masses. Simply put, by-laws are the operational doctrine that are intended to protect the organization against miscreants. Clearly the by-laws failed the VCA organization and over time contributed to the formation of the VOA. I think members have a legitimate right to ensure clarity and ultimately accountability here.

Some of the responses to luc's original questions seem self-serving. The most egregious is the comment on term limits. Why should the current BOD care if there are term limits? We all understand how difficult it is to get folks to volunteer for leadership positions in clubs and we appreciate the work that our club officers undertake. However, one crucial responsibility of any good leader is to develop a pipeline of talent that could be his/her replacement. Are you really suggesting that with 2500 global members (Smokn Tires number) there are no legitimate candidates to replace a small handful of officers? Really? The top 0.2% of the members are really that good or are the rest of us simply just inept and uninformed?

I personally believe there should be term limits and with a 2 year term the President should be limited to a single term for a volunteer club. Four years overseeing a volunteer club is a long time, more than four is simply unacceptable in my view.

Tend to agree with you. I had commented that when I ran the NC club - I "self term limited". Because no one wanted to run the club, I kept doing it. I believe that sometimes people don't want to step up because then it appears (at least locally) that they are saying they can "do a better job" than the current Pres. It's awkward. Having term limits eliminates that and forces folks to step up.

I am very hopeful that having 40 folks that are much more involved in the club will increase the potential pool of candidates for the national officers and encourage more folks to run (also having more folks will help with consistency - as it does take a few months just to get your feet under you....) So- I like term limits not because of the "bad" potential - but more because if forces change and makes people comfortable running without making it adversarial. (or appearing adversarial) But - the BoD felt that having 40 folks watching over the club, and being more involved, was a form of term limiting and didn't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. There are simply good arguments either way.