|
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] |
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 spindle.net (ultimate@spindle.net)
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 PROXY SOLICITATIONS TO DEFEAT THIS PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGE. 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 presented. 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 others. This is much more than my two cents worth. Comments?