NOTICE OF VOTE TO ACCEPT RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION

January 18, 2021

To All CMRA License Holders:

As part of our corporate reorganization following the Club’s successful emergence from bankruptcy, the Board of Directors is asking the members to approve a new Certificate of Formation. The changes will permit the Club to be managed in a way so as to avoid the expensive and difficult legal issues the Club has confronted in recent years.

A draft of the CORPORATE RESOLUTION TO AMEND CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION FOR CENTRAL MOTORCYCLE ROADRACING ASSOCIATION, INC. is available for download and review on the ABOUT US page.

A 14 Day voting period will begin on January 28, 2021. Ballot information will be sent via email and text message to all current CMRA License Holders.

Slide Deck from Sundays meeting.

Attachment 2199

Reminder, Ballots will go our on January 28th at 9:00am. 14 day voting period will end on February 11th.

I'm fine with everything except the change to the voting procedures. I am unclear as to the problem that is trying to be solved with this change.
If this is a yes/no as it stands with the change to the election process, I can't vote yes.
I suspect there are many member/license holders that feel the same. I suggest removing the changes to the election process.

Typo at end of first paragraph (A):
"...and the promotion of the spirit of motorcycle roadracers."
Should be "...and the promotion of the sport of motorcycle roadracing."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Hertell

I'm fine with everything except the change to the voting procedures. I am unclear as to the problem that is trying to be solved with this change.
If this is a yes/no as it stands with the change to the election process, I can't vote yes.
I suspect there are many member/license holders that feel the same. I suggest removing the changes to the election process.

---

Agree.

Thought i heard a comment awhile back that the CMRA was potentially perceived as the "good ole boy" system. How does the nomination committe help that actual or perceived perception, especially bring made up of former board officials?

Certificate of Formation article 5....can spmeone expand on what that means? Does that mean expected behaviors, or along those lines is now covered in the rulebook? If so, that'll be an interesting read!

Voting for the CoF changes starts tomorrow and will be open for 14 days. Please ask any question you need to feel good comfortable voting and encourage others to read the CoF and vote.

Derek - Article 5 is just to formalize at the CoF level that the club has a Rule book, that is separate from the ByLaws, that govern the policies and procedures of the club along side of the ByLaws.

Below is the main changes to the CoF document.

Proposed Changes to the Certificate of Formation

Article 5: Members
•
Current: The Club shall have members, whose rights, duties, and qualifications shall be set forth in the Corporation’s Bylaws.
•
Proposed: The Club shall have members, whose rights, duties, and qualifications shall be set forth in the Club’s Rule Book, as updated annually, and its Bylaws.

Article 6: Directors
•
Current: The Board of Directors of the Club shall be the governing body of the Corporation.
•
Proposed: The Board of Directors of the Club shall be the governing body of the Club and management of the affairs of the Club shall be vested in its Board of Directors.

Article 9: Amendments
•
Current: The power to amend this Certificate of Formation shall be vested in the Members.
•
Proposed: The power to amend this Certificate of Formation and to amend or repeal the Club’s Bylaws is vested in the Club’s Board of Directors.

The Changes to the ByLaws is not part of the voting. Per the current ByLaws, any proposed change to the ByLaws must be presented to the membership for review and feedback. The membership DOES NOT VOTE on ByLaw changes, the BOD considers the feedback and will vote the next time they meet.

The primary change to the ByLaws we presented are regarding the election process.

The Purpose is:
1. to get more people involved - we have quite a few people that offer opinions and advice but will turn down a 3 yr commitment to the BOD. Via the Nominations Committee they can be involved for a month or 2 selecting the most qualified nominees.
2. to have qualified nominees on the ballot. In the last BOD election we had 2 candidates for 2 positions, the hope is that the Nominations Committee can find more eligible people to run for BOD. In the past we have also had a large list of people on ballots and some have been good for the club, some have had personal agendas that are not very helpful and sometimes disruptive. By inserting a Nominations Committee the hope is to get a reasonable number of qualified candidates.


There is a concern that having 2 exBOD people will influence the makeup of the BOD. The purpose of the 2 exBOD people is to answer any questions that nominees may have about the commitment and duties if elected to the BOD. The desire is the Nomination committee will have 6-10 people that elect a Chairperson to run the committee and report back to the BOD. The Chairperson does not have to be one of the 2 exBOD people

There was also concern that this is just extra process and the bottom line is it is. We have to try something to get more people involved and to get more qualified people to want to participate in the BOD.

The good-ole-boy comment comes up from time to time as well. The perception is that existing BOD members try and recruit people they want on the board. These people are usually their friends. So the perception is, friend just get other friends on and they keep cycling thru. The idea of the nominations committee is to get more people involved and nominating their friends to get a larger base of people to vote on, instead of the small number we have today.

Please let us know if you have any additional questions

Jeff,
Thanks for your reply and information. It is all a bit confusing to us non-lawyer motorcycle trash types, so please bear with a few more questions and clarifications. I value your perspective and responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Phillips

The Changes to the ByLaws is not part of the voting. Per the current ByLaws, any proposed change to the ByLaws must be presented to the membership for review and feedback. The membership DOES NOT VOTE on ByLaw changes, the BOD considers the feedback and will vote the next time they meet.

---

Do I understand this correctly that the voting process change is part of the bylaws and the membership only has review and feedback power over that and the BOD can vote to approve that no matter the opinion of the majority of the membership?

Quote:

---

The primary change to the ByLaws we presented are regarding the election process.

The Purpose is:
1. to get more people involved - we have quite a few people that offer opinions and advice but will turn down a 3 yr commitment to the BOD. Via the Nominations Committee they can be involved for a month or 2 selecting the most qualified nominees.
2. to have qualified nominees on the ballot. In the last BOD election we had 2 candidates for 2 positions, the hope is that the Nominations Committee can find more eligible people to run for BOD. In the past we have also had a large list of people on ballots and some have been good for the club, some have had personal agendas that are not very helpful and sometimes disruptive. By inserting a Nominations Committee the hope is to get a reasonable number of qualified candidates.

---

1. Good, I like.
2. If the people who form the Nominations Committee can find more eligible people to run for the BOD, why don't they just do that as individual club members? I don't see this argument as a significant advantage. If it is an advantage, then have this Nominations Committee just add people to the nominee list without the power to remove.

Regarding the problem of having um... sub-optimal candidates, that is kind of an inherent problem with democratic orgs: you are at the risk of the good judgement of the majority. I think this risk is not as high as the other risk...

My concern over this process is similar to my concern over a similar proposal last year: it isolates control into arguably one person. Bear with me through a hypothetical situation with a "bad actor" BOD president (which thankfully we have not had so far):

1. Bad president appoints the nominating committee of "at least 2 former BOD members." He can appoint two "yes men" former BOD members as the entire nominating committee and there is no oversight whatsoever.
2. Nominating committee whittles the list of nominees down to the number of vacancies, thereby directly selecting the next two BOD members. Again, the membership has no way to overcome this selection.
3. Procedure repeats for two cycles at which time the BOD is fully the president's yes men and he has plenty of former BOD buds to form future nominating committees from.

I am concerned that this lends itself to easily to complete control of the club by one person with no oversight or veto power. If nothing else, the nominating committee should at least be required to reduce the list to no less than 2 or 3x the number of vacancies open, thereby leaving at least some control to the membership. Of course then with caveats for the situation where not even that many candidates are on the original membership-wide nominee list. But again, I think this risk is higher than the risk of having poor candidates nominated and selected by the membership at large and that in the current situation, the cure is worse than the problem.

Quote:

---

There is a concern that having 2 exBOD people will influence the makeup of the BOD. The purpose of the 2 exBOD people is to answer any questions that nominees may have about the commitment and duties if elected to the BOD. The desire is the Nomination committee will have 6-10 people that elect a Chairperson to run the committee and report back to the BOD. The Chairperson does not have to be one of the 2 exBOD people

---

Nothing in the by-laws requires more than just the two ex BOD members to constitute the Nominations Committee. I'm not all that concerned about this good old boy issue, but if it is an issue (and to get a little more diverse nominating committee), it should be required that the committee is composed of for example, two former BOD members and at least two non-BOD members. Or at least a minimum membership number of >>2.

Quote:

---

There was also concern that this is just extra process and the bottom line is it is. We have to try something to get more people involved and to get more qualified people to want to participate in the BOD.

The good-ole-boy comment comes up from time to time as well. The perception is that existing BOD members try and recruit people they want on the board. These people are usually their friends. So the perception is, friend just get other friends on and they keep cycling thru. The idea of the nominations committee is to get more people involved and nominating their friends to get a larger base of people to vote on, instead of the small number we have today.

---

As noted, the bylaw process, as written, does not require ANY outsiders to be on the Nominations Committee. And again, these non-BOD folks have the full capability to nominate highly qualified people they know for the BOD in the current nominating voting system we have today. So no change needed.

Quote:

---

Please let us know if you have any additional questions

---

As mentioned last year, I don't suspect any of the current BOD of having ulterior motives, but rules should be written to prevent future bad actions by people with ill intentions and I don't see that kind of protection here.

I sincerely appreciate the BOD's efforts and look forward to your response. Maybe (hopefully) I have maybe just mis-read some of the documents, in which case I look forward to the clarifications. Thank you for your time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Branyon

Do I understand this correctly that the voting process change is part of the bylaws and the membership only has review and feedback power over that and the BOD can vote to approve that no matter the opinion of the majority of the membership?

---

Any change to the ByLaws has to go thru this process, BOD recommendation, post for member review and feedback, BOD vote. This is the procedure that has been in place since the original ByLaws in 1991. If a BOD member takes his job seriously then feedback has a say in the BOD voting process. This suggested change is something the BOD believes will help with getting good future leadership for the club. If it proves otherwise or needs modifications it can be changed.

Quote:

---

2. If the people who form the Nominations Committee can find more eligible people to run for the BOD, why don't they just do that as individual club members? I don't see this argument as a significant advantage. If it is an advantage, then have this Nominations Committee just add people to the nominee list without the power to remove.

Regarding the problem of having um... sub-optimal candidates, that is kind of an inherent problem with democratic orgs: you are at the risk of the good judgement of the majority. I think this risk is not as high as the other risk...

---

The hope is that if people are part of the Nominations Committee they will feel an obligation to try and get enough qualified candidates to have a proper ballot. In the current process the only criteria to be on the ballot is to be a member in good standing for 720 days. A person can nominate themselves. There is nothing in place for the voting members to "get to now" the nominees. All voters know are the names on the ballot. then, if the vote, many vote for "I heard of them". I believe this is one of the reason why voter turnout is so low. People say I do not know any of these candidates so i am not voting. One of the expectations of the Nominations Committee is to talk to each candidate and find out why they decided to accept the nomination. This way voters at least know a Committee has vetted the group. The Charter for the Nominations Committee has not been written, only some base framework. The expectation is the first Nominations Committee will define the Charter they will operate under.

Quote:

---

Nothing in the by-laws requires more than just the two ex BOD members to constitute the Nominations Committee. I'm not all that concerned about this good old boy issue, but if it is an issue (and to get a little more diverse nominating committee), it should be required that the committee is composed of for example, two former BOD members and at least two non-BOD members. Or at least a minimum membership number of >>2.

---

Is the scenario you outlined possible, anything is possible, but not very likely. I agree we need to add a minimum number of non exBOD members. Is 2 non ex BOD members ok?
We can also add a 2x or 3x minimum candidates on the ballot, however that may put a big burden on the Committee to find qualified candidates if only 2 people get nominated. I would like to put that type of governance at the Nominations Committee Charter instead of the ByLaws.

Quote:

---

As noted, the bylaw process, as written, does not require ANY outsiders to be on the Nominations Committee. And again, these non-BOD folks have the full capability to nominate highly qualified people they know for the BOD in the current nominating voting system we have today. So no change needed.

---

If people would nominate highly qualified people it would be great. but recent history has not shown that is the case.

Quote:

---

As mentioned last year, I don't suspect any of the current BOD of having ulterior motives, but rules should be written to prevent future bad actions by people with ill intentions and I don't see that kind of protection here.

---

There is not really a way to write something that can prevent this, but our hope is if someone has to go thru a nominations committee to discuss why they want to be on the BOD and hear from exBOD members that they will change how they view the responsibility of the BOD or the Nominations Committee will see what their agenda is and act appropriately.

Thank you for your feedback.

Jeff,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response.

I am still concerned about the opportunity for one bad actor president to gain complete control of the club through the proposed changes to procedures (see details in my previous post). I really don't see the risk being worth the gains on this, still. It seems if we are trying to get more people involved, a better process would be for the nominating committee to only add nominees to the list, and then with the interviews, to recommend candidates to the general membership. It appears that this would accomplish nearly all of the goals of this change with none of the potential downside risk.

I feel like the "get to know" the candidates pages that are posted on the message board serve this purpose pretty well, and I read every one of them, every time, and assume that most other voters do as well. Maybe I'm too optimistic on that. But I think having an experienced "Nominations Committee" (Recommendation Committee?) to post up their endorsements for the BOD and reasoning, as well as work to add to the nominee list would an excellent addition!

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Branyon

I am still concerned about the opportunity for one bad actor president to gain complete control of the club through the proposed changes to procedures (see details in my previous post). I really don't see the risk being worth the gains on this, still. It seems if we are trying to get more people involved, a better process would be for the nominating committee to only add nominees to the list, and then with the interviews, to recommend candidates to the general membership. It appears that this would accomplish nearly all of the goals of this change with none of the potential downside risk.

---

There are 6 other people on the Board of Directors that will be part of the process of selecting the core of nomination committee. The remainder of the committee will hopefully be volunteers. It would be virtually impossible for "one bad actor President" to stack the deck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Branyon

I feel like the "get to know" the candidates pages that are posted on the message board serve this purpose pretty well, and I read every one of them, every time, and assume that most other voters do as well. Maybe I'm too optimistic on that. But I think having an experienced "Nominations Committee" (Recommendation Committee?) to post up their endorsements for the BOD and reasoning, as well as work to add to the nominee list would an excellent addition!

---

No offence intended but yes you are too optimistic. There are only about 10 license holders that frequent the message board these days. In the past it was much better but most have fallen into social medias orbit.


I've had the honor of working closely with 19 Boards of Directors in my time as Race Director so I have a unique perspective on this.

People like Brooks Gremels, Harry Tomlinson, Barry Nichols, John Orchard, Steve McNamara, Danny Dominguez, Jeff Phillips, and the list goes on have made great contributions to the CMRA in their time on the BoD. Unfortunately There have been just as many that where little more that an empty chair. Most of those folks were popular good hearted people and were elected solely because of their popularity. Once elected they had little to offer. A few were even disruptive or just didn't participate at all. In most cases these people had good intentions when they accept the nomination. It's when they were elected and they found out that a fair amount of time and though goes into it that they started mailing it in.

In December we had 50 people nominated to fill a vacated seat on the BoD. I contacted each of those nominees to find out if they would accept the nomination. The majority (80%) of those nominees had no idea that they had been nominated. 13 accepted the nomination, 11 were ineligible due to gaps in their license renewal or they were not in good standing, 1 was already on the BoD, and the rest declined the nomination for a wide variety of reasons. Many asked me what was required to serve. I told them about quarterly in person meetings, Zoom meetings as needed, monitoring the private BoD forum, and attending events. Most that declined gave honest reasons like "I don't have the time" or "I don't know enough about the CMRA to serve" or "I just want to race". Several said that their nomination was a joke and two declined when they found out there was no compensation for being on the BoD.

The Hope is that a Nomination Committee can weed out those nominees that have unrealistic expectations about what it takes to serve on the BoD. By interviewing each nominee the committee can better prepare the nominees for a potential term on the BoD. This is why the committee MUST have former BoD members as part of it's makeup. The rest of the committee should be made up of License Holders that are interested and truly care about the CMRAs future. People just like you David.

The Nomination Committee will also be able to seek out License Holders that may not have been nominated. The bottom line is we need people on the BoD with experience in business management and finance more than we need someone who brings the beer to the track. While bringing the beer is important its not as important as solid management skills.

Change is sometimes difficult and often painful. It's especially painful when in seems like something is being taken away. In this case nothing is being taken away. License Holders will still nominate people for the BoD and still vote for those on the ballot. The only difference is that the ballot will have the MOST qualified nominees. I think the hang-up is that the committee could have the power to disqualify someone from the ballot. Frankly I believe that some nominees will likely remove themselves during the interview process as they gain a better understanding of what goes into serving.

This subject has been discussed by Boards of Directors for years but this BoD has decided to try and do something about it. As Jeff has already stated if it doesn't work we can change it back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Branyon

Jeff,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful response.

I am still concerned about the opportunity for one bad actor president to gain complete control of the club through the proposed changes to procedures (see details in my previous post). I really don't see the risk being worth the gains on this, still. It seems if we are trying to get more people involved, a better process would be for the nominating committee to only add nominees to the list, and then with the interviews, to recommend candidates to the general membership. It appears that this would accomplish nearly all of the goals of this change with none of the potential downside risk.

I feel like the "get to know" the candidates pages that are posted on the message board serve this purpose pretty well, and I read every one of them, every time, and assume that most other voters do as well. Maybe I'm too optimistic on that. But I think having an experienced "Nominations Committee" (Recommendation Committee?) to post up their endorsements for the BOD and reasoning, as well as work to add to the nominee list would an excellent addition!

Thoughts?

---

to be honest, i do not see how the proposed changes will increase the possibility of your scenario.

Quote:

---

a better process would be for the nominating committee to only add nominees to the list, and then with the interviews, to recommend candidates to the general membership.

---

Quote:

---

But I think having an experienced "Nominations Committee" (Recommendation Committee?) to post up their endorsements for the BOD and reasoning, as well as work to add to the nominee list would an excellent addition!

---

What you have outline above as a better option is essentially what the current proposal is. There is nothing in the current proposal that says the Nominations Committee is required to eliminate any candidate, it only gives them the option.

In regards to the number of non exBOD people on the Nominations Committee, is 2 OK?

Thanks Walter for this reply and for your service to the club. Very thankful for your years of contributions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Walker

There are 6 other people on the Board of Directors that will be part of the process of selecting the core of nomination committee. The remainder of the committee will hopefully be volunteers. It would be virtually impossible for "one bad actor President" to stack the deck.

---

I like the intent and direction of this but I think needs to be re-written to achieve that. The full text of section 6.03 which lays out the Nominations Committee:

Quote:

---

Not later than July 1 of each year, the President shall appoint a Nominations Committee to consist of at least two License Holders who have served as Directors in the past (but not currently) and who have been off of the Board for a minimum of 12 months prior to appointment. The Nominations Committee shall perform the duties described in Article Four of these Bylaws. (emphasis mine)

---

I would propose to clarify that it's the board that will appoint the Nominations Committee rather than the President acting alone, just as you noted above.

Quote:

---

No offence intended but yes you are too optimistic.

People like Brooks Gremels, Harry Tomlinson, Barry Nichols, John Orchard, Steve McNamara, Danny Dominguez, Jeff Phillips, and the list goes on have made great contributions to the CMRA in their time on the BoD.

The Hope is that a Nomination Committee can weed out those nominees that have unrealistic expectations about what it takes to serve on the BoD.

---

Optimism runs deep with me--sorry. I'd hope we could get more people reading the bios... maybe they should go on the fb page also... I dunno. And that is quite a listing of the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Great people who have sacrificed for the club, along with yourself!

I think my proposed changes don't blunt any of the objectives. To re-state:

• Nothing prevents the would be Nominations Committee members from seeking out additional BOD nominees as simple club members. But nothing really bad about forming a Nominations Committee to seek out additional candidates either.
• I'd propose that the Nominations Committee be appointed by the entire BOD rather than just President and that it be required to have more than just the two ex-BOD members. (I believe that is the intention; it's just not written that way right now.)
• Propose that the Nominations Committee do the interviewing and recommending but not have the ability to remove candidates from the nominee list.

And agree, while bringing refreshments is commendable, it's not a good qualification for a BOD position. Thanks for your thoughtful reply and I appreciate the fact that the BOD is looking to improve the quality of future BODs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Phillips

to be honest, i do not see how the proposed changes will increase the possibility of your scenario.

---

Not sure if you mean The Proposal or my proposed changes. But to be clear (and a bit repetitive), I believe the current as-written bylaw changes allow the following:

1. President appoints nominating committee composed of only two ex-BOD candidates, who he selects because they'll do his bidding.
2. This two-person Nominations Committee whittles the list down to a number of candidates equal to the number of openings, effectively disallowing a membership vote on the next BOD members.

Quote:

---

What you have outline above as a better option is essentially what the current proposal is. There is nothing in the current proposal that says the Nominations Committee is required to eliminate any candidate, it only gives them the option.

In regards to the number of non exBOD people on the Nominations Committee, is 2 OK?

---

Right, it doesn't require them to do my worst case scenario, it just allows it. I'd like to not allow it. I think if it specified at least 4 people on the Nominations Committee, that would be a big improvement. And the other two being not former BOD members probably looks better and fosters some diversity so yeah, I'd be in favor of that change.

I still don't see the problem though with:

• Having the Nominations Committee able to add but not remove nominees to/from the list and
• Having the Nominations Committee recommend the candidates they feel would be the most valuable to the BOD and by extension to the club. It would be like a voter's guide provided by people willing to do the legwork and really investigate the candidates. Would also serve the point (I think Walter's) of educating the candidates about what they're getting into and making sure they're up for the job at hand.

Can't overstate how much I appreciate y'alls patience with me. I know it's hard to listen to people with alternative ideas speaking up when you've put in a lot of effort into generating the ideas and documents that are being discussed. I have every intention of being only constructive and helpful. If I'm not in anyway, I sincerely apologize.

Thanks again!

We will change the wording from president to BOD appoints. We will also add at least 4 license holders along with 2 exBOD members. I feel that eliminating the removal option has the possibility of hampering the committee should they feel it needs to exercise the option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those sound like really good changes, Jeff. Appreciate the open, respectful discussion.

If the removal option is left in, I'd like something that prevents the committee from reducing the number of candidates down to the number of vacancies, but can't figure out any good wording with all the caveats. Open to any ideas.

Thanks again for the good discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Phillips

We will change the wording from president to BOD appoints. We will also add at least 4 license holders along with 2 exBOD members. I feel that eliminating the removal option has the possibility of hampering the committee should they feel it needs to exercise the option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

This makes more sense to me a helps the perception I commented on. Thanks.

I may have missed it in reading...is there anything the proposal that stated that the members of the nominating committee cannot also be eligible to run for the BOD in the election for which that they’re nominating? Basically, a way to ensure that the committee doesn’t appoint themselves as the best members of the BOD.

I’m thinking that the committee could be made up of members (both license holders and former BOD) that either are ineligible to run, though still have valuable input, or have made it clear that while they don’t want to serve on the BOD, they still care about the future of the club and would like to have input on establishing the members of the BOD.

We tried to keep to the policies of the Committee up to the committee. The intent is something like this would be in the Charter the Committee will create. At a minimum, it is a conflict of interest and they should abstain from the selection process.

Walter and Jeff, thank you for the informative answers to various questions. I am happy to see this initiative re-tooled and moving forward to improve the CMRA operations and Board of Directors selection. I hope that it gets the support that it deserves.

Below is a rewrite of the Nominations Committee section of the ByLaws. I believe this addresses the concerns that were brought forward. Thank you for you feedback

Section 6.03. Nominations Committee.
Not later than July 1 of each year, the Board of Directors shall appoint a Nominations Committee to consist of at least two License Holders who have served as Directors in the past (but not currently) and who have been off of the Board for a minimum of 12 months prior to appointment. The Board of Directors will also solicit, via forum, for two or more non BOD/non exBOD licenses Holders to join the Committee. If any Committee member decides to become a nominee, they must resign from the Committee, due to conflict of interest. The Nominations Committee shall perform the duties described in Article Four of these Bylaws

Should be 4 or more non bod members on the committee.

Also, discounting someone for missing the Jan 1st deadline for license renewal needs to be removed. Or, at least state that they can renew at the 1st race. Y'all are complaining about not enough BOD candidates but then 11 of them were not able to be included. I personally know of 2 that have been members for many years but didn't register on the 1st of Jan. one year and were excluded. Both of whom would make excellent BOD members.

Keith
You make very good points and we will discuss the 720 consecutive days at the next BOD meeting. We will revisit the 2 or 4+ non BOD again, our biggest concern is if we make it to large a number we might not be able to get enough participants and the committee would not comply with bylaws


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It used to be 720 days and the requirement wasn’t a January 1st renewal. I would research when the member renewed the previous years and use those dates. For example if someone renewed at the first round each year, then that was the date that was used. Even though licenses technically expired on December 31st each year, if they renewed close to the same time each year it was ok.

The 720 day rule was put in place to weed out people who weren’t involved in the club but would join at the last minute to run for the Board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nancy Selleck

The 720 day rule was put in place to weed out people who weren’t involved in the club but would join at the last minute to run for the Board.

---

Just FYI the 2006 ByLaws requirement was "180 consecutive days", it was changed to "730 consecutive days" in the 2011 ByLaws and has remained consistent since.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nancy Selleck

It used to be 720 days and the requirement wasn’t a January 1st renewal. I would research when the member renewed the previous years and use those dates. For example if someone renewed at the first round each year, then that was the date that was used. Even though licenses technically expired on December 31st each year, if they renewed close to the same time each year it was ok.

---

The Bylaws have never made reference to 'January 1st renewal' but they have consistently required "consecutive days" of membership. There may have been some evolution of the rigor with which the ByLaws were applied as a matter of practice or policy, but strict interpretation of the ByLaws has never allowed a 'lapse of membership' between 12/31 and the first race insofar as eligibility to run for BOD election is concerned.

Just FYI from the archive, carry on ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith Hertell

Should be 4 or more non bod members on the committee.

Also, discounting someone for missing the Jan 1st deadline for license renewal needs to be removed. Or, at least state that they can renew at the 1st race. Y'all are complaining about not enough BOD candidates but then 11 of them were not able to be included. I personally know of 2 that have been members for many years but didn't register on the 1st of Jan. one year and were excluded. Both of whom would make excellent BOD members.

---

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion in my personal opinion only.

Frankly it’s all about commitment to me. Serving on the BoD is a big commitment. It’s much more of a commitment now than the last time that you served on the BoD. You can thank the post lawsuit legalities for that. With the level of commitment required it’s tough for me to justify placing trust in someone that can’t maintain their license continuity. Maybe a 10 grace period but over 40 days is just lazy. We don’t need lazy on the BoD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Etheredge

Just FYI the 2006 ByLaws requirement was "180 consecutive days", it was changed to "730 consecutive days" in the 2011 ByLaws and has remained consistent since.

The Bylaws have never made reference to 'January 1st renewal' but they have consistently required "consecutive days" of membership. There may have been some evolution of the rigor with which the ByLaws were applied as a matter of practice or policy, but strict interpretation of the ByLaws has never allowed a 'lapse of membership' between 12/31 and the first race insofar as eligibility to run for BOD election is concerned.

Just FYI from the archive, carry on ...

---

The 720 days requirement is verified for every nominee. Those that are disqualified due to license continuity in most cases have significant gaps (10 days are more) in licensing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Walker

The 720 days requirement is verified for every nominee. Those that are disqualified due to license continuity in most cases have significant gaps (10 days are more) in licensing.

---

I'm one of those "non-serious racers". Been a member since 2000, but haven't sprinted since around 2003... well I hit one now and then but generally just endurance race. My practice has been to renew my license and sign up for the first race at the same time, a week or two before the first race, unless my endurance team pushes earlier for some reason. Just no reason to try and jump on it 1-Jan (or 5-Jan or...) when it's a couple of months until the first race and I'm in the middle of holiday stuff. No grid position stuff in it for me (that I know of, ref: "unless team pushes earlier") and so just my standard procedure. Could I make a note to try and renew on Jan 1? Yes. Would we have more eligible BOD candidates if we made the proposed change? Surely. But BOD's call of course.

Just one guy weighing in, and noting the possibility that there may be a bunch of other folks with the same approach. I'd be in favor of making it something like "2 years of continuous membership. The year's membership shall have started by the first race event to count as a full year." Or something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Walker

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion in my personal opinion only.

Frankly it’s all about commitment to me. Serving on the BoD is a big commitment. It’s much more of a commitment now than the last time that you served on the BoD. You can thank the post lawsuit legalities for that. With the level of commitment required it’s tough for me to justify placing trust in someone that can’t maintain their license continuity. Maybe a 10 grace period but over 40 days is just lazy. We don’t need lazy on the BoD.

---

Exactly this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Branyon

I'm one of those "non-serious racers". Been a member since 2000, but haven't sprinted since around 2003... well I hit one now and then but generally just endurance race. My practice has been to renew my license and sign up for the first race at the same time, a week or two before the first race, unless my endurance team pushes earlier for some reason. Just no reason to try and jump on it 1-Jan (or 5-Jan or...) when it's a couple of months until the first race and I'm in the middle of holiday stuff. No grid position stuff in it for me (that I know of, ref: "unless team pushes earlier") and so just my standard procedure. Could I make a note to try and renew on Jan 1? Yes. Would we have more eligible BOD candidates if we made the proposed change? Surely. But BOD's call of course.

Just one guy weighing in, and noting the possibility that there may be a bunch of other folks with the same approach. I'd be in favor of making it something like "2 years of continuous membership. The year's membership shall have started by the first race event to count as a full year." Or something like that.

---

David,

The January 1st deadline is solely for retaining competition numbers and has nothing to do with grid positions. A person does not have to renew by January 1st to maintain their 720 consecutive days. License renewals opened in early November. Filling out and submitting that paperwork takes less than 10 min for even the most computer challenged. If 10 mins is to much of a hassle then we certainly don't need them serving on the BoD because it's going to require a lot more than 10 mins of their time. We need people that ARE SERIOUS about what we do on the BoD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walter Walker

David,

The January 1st deadline is solely for retaining competition numbers and has nothing to do with grid positions. A person does not have to renew by January 1st to maintain their 720 consecutive days. License renewals opened in early November. Filling out and submitting that paperwork takes less than 10 min for even the most computer challenged. If 10 mins is to much of a hassle then we certainly don't need them serving on the BoD because it's going to require a lot more than 10 mins of their time. We need people that ARE SERIOUS about what we do on the BoD.

---

Okay.

Sent using Tapatalk