Acro Image

Aerobatics Server

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: President's council, bylaw changes

[International Aerobatic Club] [Communications] [Aerobatics Images]

Disclaimer: These aerobatics pages are developed by individual IAC members and do not represent official IAC policy or opinion.

[Usage Statistics]

ACRO E-mail Archive Thread: President's council, bylaw changes


Thread: President's council, bylaw changes

Message: President's council, bylaw changes

Follow-Up To: ACRO Email list (for List Members only)

From: ultimate at (

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:28:05 UTC


  Dickey Jr's patriotic plea to install a legislative body to represent
individual chapter's agendas WITH A VOTE THAT COUNTS sounds like a good
idea to most of us although we supposedly already have such
representation in the form of our Area Representatives. But, as Dickey
points out, the general feel is that the agendas, wishes, desires,
proposals, and suggestions of IAC Members at the Chapter level are not
given a "...fair hearing on an equal footing with those proposed by the
ruling junta itself" when directed through the Representatives.  

This is not surprising.  Representatives are elected AT LARGE then have
areas assigned to them.  Seems backwards to me.  We should elect our
Representatives  from our own areas to carry our desires to the BOD. 
One concerned member thought so, too, and proposed a bylaw change to do
just that.  This was defeated year before last as many will recall.   A
new controversy arose when the then IAC PRESIDENT SENT OUT ONE-SIDED

What's that you say?  One sided?  Articles VII and IX of the IAC's
bylaws respectively allow that any Member attending a board meeting may
cast his and only one other Member's vote by proxy, while the president
may send out information and solicitations for unlimited proxy's that
don't give a yes or no option to the Member - these solicitations ask
only permission to use the Member's vote in any way seen fit by the
president.  To add to this bit of tyranny, the president may appoint
another to cast the president's votes thus underhandedly gleaned
(cynical readers may conclude that this is designed to put distance
between the president and a potentially unpopular voting record).

Two bylaw change proposals were submitted to the IAC by Chapter 24 to
stop these incredible bylaw loopholes:  One to allow the president to
send out information that was non-biased and allowed every Member to
grant any other Member their voting proxy; the other was to allow
unlimited proxies to be held by any Member.  The first one was
offhandedly discarded and termed "illegal" - Chapter 24 was never
informed why.   The second was voted on in the board meeting early this
year and was defeated.  A small footnote in SA noted the pending vote
and another in a later issue noted its defeat.  The president did not
send out solicitations for proxies to defeat the "legal" proposal vote.  

Interesting.  The Area Representative bylaw change proposal prompted the
then president to solicit one-sided proxies, but the proxy voting bylaw
change proposal did not prompt a solicitation for proxies.  I have
decided to offhandedly conclude that the then board was not unified
about the Area Representative issue thus requiring the president to use
this proxy power to keep the board in line, but the proxy change issue
was one about which the board was unified to not allow Members too much
voting power so proxies were not needed.  Jerry Gerdes' much appreciated
response to the President's Council suggestion provided a chance for us
to gain certainty about the inner workings of the BOD that most thinking
Members already inherently knew.  His post affirms what was just

Something else:  The Membership was cautioned that the IAC treasury
would lose $7,000 for each bylaw change proposal.  I don't believe a
bylaw change costs $7,000 to bring to a vote.  I believe it is possible
only if postage, printing, return postage,  and other mailing costs are
incurred for a one-sided proxy solicitation.  Certainly Chapter 24's
proposal didn't cost $7,000.  If it did, I'd like to see an accounting
of the costs.

Back to Dickey's proposal:  Bylaws would have to be changed and power
would have to be relinquished by the BOD.  This will not happen.  

It is possible, however, for each chapter to have a vote as provided by
Article VII of the Bylaws, already in place.  Any member present at a
board meeting can cast a vote.  Each Chapter could thus send its
President or any Member to vote its agenda.  Big issues would require
coordination among the chapters so a voting bloc could be effective. 
Perhaps a fund can be set up by the IAC to pay travel expenses for the
purpose of assuring that each chapter has voting representation present
at every meeting.  Why not?

Some last thoughts:  So what if the board does have power?  2 or 3
months from now flying and competing starts again and this will all
become secondary.  

Jerry Gerdes said that a benevolent dictatorship  is fine with many but
most of us find that not having a say was anathema.  I agree.  The proxy
issue was just that to me:  an assault on my right of participation and
resentment that I was voting for representatives that had the power to
force their "edicts" on me irrespective of my desires while asking me to
support the organization with my volunteerism and my money.  Not that I
don't agree with some "edicts" - most are sensible and really are
nothing more than the ordinary conduct of reasonable business.  On the
other hand, I want a say with repsect to the major items affecting the
Membership:  Grass Roots vs. "the Teams", continually creating red ink
at Fond du Lac, overspending IAC resources on EAA's agendas, Location of
the IAC Championships and Nationals (I live 40 miles from Grayson
County, by the way, and I would not object to moving Nationals around
the country and around on the calendar - it's only fair), requiring
attendance at the Championships and Nationals for team selection, and

This is much more than my two cents worth. 



© Dr. Günther Eichhorn
Email Guenther Eichhorn