Charter change proposals

[Parks]

The SDGA Board along with some of the Charter Review Committee members had previously discussed proposing an amendment to the SDGA Charter that would require giving a written description and specifics of the charter change 30 days in advance of a meeting for it to be voted on, as well as another proposal that would require some kind of member quorum at any open meeting where a charter change was to be voted upon.

The idea was to post these proposals on this forum or otherwise make them available 30 days before the election meeting in mid-January (which is historically the most attended meeting) in order to make a good-faith effort to show that these are useful and deserved changes that would follow their own rules to be passed.

I haven't seen any such posting, so this is just a post to both see what is going on with these proposals and to inform the membership of these future proposals.

[LJ Jubner]

Is there going to be a conflict of interest section?

[LJ Jubner]

The SDGA Board along with some of the Charter Review Committee members had previously discussed proposing an amendment to the SDGA Charter that would require giving a written description and specifics of the charter change 30 days in advance of a meeting for it to be voted on,

I guess my question is If this is a "Proposed amendment to the current charter" isn't this cart before the horse?
Granted it's a good idea whose time has long been neglected.

Like the formalization of club meetings.
The Boards ability to keep things moving by not getting bogged down with new business at the expense of published agenda.
The players ability to sign in and post any new business concerns, Then board looks over list and decides each is fate.

Already on current agenda
Allowed as New
Tabled for next agenda

... as well as another proposal that would require some kind of member quorum at any open meeting where a charter change was to be voted upon.

This is a very slippery slope. By proposing "an in attendance vote" you raise the possability of ...at a poorly attended club meeting , the club could be hijacked by the few in attendance at the expense of everyone.

A better compromise would be yearly examination of the charter or an amendment restricting how much of the charter can be changed at any one time.

[General Scales]

If members aren't allowed to vote on most issues, doesn't this mean the club is hijacked by a very select few?

[Parks]

This is a very slippery slope. By proposing "an in attendance vote" you raise the possability of ...at a poorly attended club meeting , the club could be hijacked by the few in attendance at the expense of everyone.

This is exactly what a quorum for charter changes would prevent. Right now, we can have a scheduled membership meeting where only four Board Members show up and vote on a bunch of charter changes. I guess I don't see your point, or you don't see mine.

A better compromise would be yearly examination of the charter or an amendment restricting how much of the charter can be changed at any one time.

Care to expand upon this some more?

[Parks]

Is there going to be a conflict of interest section?

What would require that, and how would you implement it?

[LJ Jubner]

Answering both posts

Yearly review of charter would be a lot of work especially if nothing changed

Limit to how much of charter can be changed at any one time.. No more then 40% of the clauses could be changed in any given year.

The Sekani project demonstrates how a conflict of interest can warp any given project. Being privy to board information and then acting on it unilaterally without further discussion amongst the board (Yes, even if it benefits the community) leads to trouble.

[Yoduh]

Jub, please explain how it's been hijacked? Does this remind you of Herm and Seatac when you approached the city well after the ball had already started rolling?

[Parks]

The Sekani project demonstrates how a conflict of interest can warp any given project. Being privy to board information and then acting on it unilaterally without further discussion amongst the board (Yes, even if it benefits the community) leads to trouble.

What is the conflict of interest at Sekani?

[LJ Jubner]

Again answering both posts
Jeremy swing and a miss My comment about hijacking the club could be as easy as having a member make "an open motion from the floor" and it has to be voted on. By populating the floor with supporters could railroad something as radical as changing the charter that disbands the board and crowning a king all because of turn out for the meeting.

Parks you don't see the conflict of interest Jeff has put himself into?
self aggrandized facts

he preceded alone without continuous board direction and support.
for an extended length of time represented that he did in fact represent the board and negotiated with parties without board direction
Had ample opportunity to "bring the board up to speed" on several occasions but choose not too.

[Yoduh]

Crowned King? hmmmm.. Not sure what the news paper says in Seattle but here in Spokane it says the weather has been nice and so has the forum. Must be bored? Your assertions from 300 miles away are very presumptive and stirring.. The old forum (ODSA) allowed it's members to ignore certain peoples post. Some people consistently bring negativity and misinformation to the table. I Love you Jub, but this would be an extremely helpful addition to this forum. I do believe you were on many people's list a long time ago. If I click on your name and read your posts, almost every single post in the SDGA category has been that of the stirring variety. I know you like the bee's swarming, good entertainment. Find another town to pester.

[friable7]

The SDGA Board along with some of the Charter Review Committee members had previously discussed proposing an amendment to the SDGA Charter that would require giving a written description and specifics of the charter change 30 days in advance of a meeting for it to be voted on, as well as another proposal that would require some kind of member quorum at any open meeting where a charter change was to be voted upon.

The idea was to post these proposals on this forum or otherwise make them available 30 days before the election meeting in mid-January (which is historically the most attended meeting) in order to make a good-faith effort to show that these are useful and deserved changes that would follow their own rules to be passed.

I haven't seen any such posting, so this is just a post to both see what is going on with these proposals and to inform the membership of these future proposals.

Lyle,

I think you nailed what would simply be a "new business" discussion on the agenda for the next meeting (allthough it is not listed as a responsibility of the president I think Jeff has done this). It would be far better and the best act of good faith to let the membership be a part of crafting a motion to do future business in a way that is more open and inclusive. I have been in a quandry about how to approach this issue for weeks now and can see no other way to do it that doesn't look manipulative and back door to some folks. The vote will be the vote the way the current Charter reads one way or the other.

I hope to get some feedback from the Board about how they want the Charter Review to proceed -or not... I always envsioned a complete review and final report/recommendations on our findings after going over the entire document. This particular issue was important and deserves the extra look but I cannot see us nickle and diming our way through a review if we move on with the initiative.

I am in line with Jub's "cart before the horse" thinking. We have plenty we can do to build unity, formalize how we do business and create some structure around roles and responsibilities as the Charter Review progresses.

Tim N.

[Parks]

Parks you don't see the conflict of interest Jeff has put himself into?
self aggrandized facts

he preceded alone without continuous board direction and support.
for an extended length of time represented that he did in fact represent the board and negotiated with parties without board direction
Had ample opportunity to "bring the board up to speed" on several occasions but choose not too.


I guess what I'm missing is what is the conflict between. Generally a conflict of interest is if you're involved with a group and you stand to gain from their loss.

So assume that Jeff is sandbagging the SDGA Board. What does he gain?

[Parks]

My comment about hijacking the club could be as easy as having a member make "an open motion from the floor" and it has to be voted on. By populating the floor with supporters could railroad something as radical as changing the charter that disbands the board and crowning a king all because of turn out for the meeting.

That's actually how it is right now. I could bring 15 friends to a meeting that I think won't have many people and ramrod through a charter change without any notice.

The general proposal that I heard would fix that. You might have misinterpreted something in my original post.

[Yoduh]

Charter changes, which there haven't been any by the club in over 3 years, is suddenly something that people are worried about happening. The only change that's ever been voted, is that on whether or not the club should vote on who represents them. This is not very scary and borderline's on common sense. The charter review committee has been together for 8 months and have yet to bring any actual changes or recommendations to the club. The talking is plentiful. The action's are less than obvious because there aren't any. The what if's are so reaching that it reminds me of my 4 year old niece playing tea party:laughing: So if there is ever going to be a change to the charter it would be nice to have it happen any point within the next couple years. If the charter was changed to where there was a month long period for the club to review it, does it seem possible that disc golfers that are club members could vote via email or snail mail or telephone. It seems like if you would really like to see what the club had to say, than you would allow everyone to vote, not just the people that could make the date of the meeting. Pole the club as a whole or leave it alone.
Can things be fixed that actually need fixed, or do we just talk about how we should talk about how we fix it?:kissflowers:

[Parks]

Jeff has successfully brought a charter change during his term on the Board.

[LJ Jubner]

Jeremy your post was pretty much right on. The process for anything through the club is a time burglar but needs to be followed each and every time.

It my understanding that the Charter committee was set up by the board to examine a document that needed to be updated. Then report back to the board it's findings. With Lyle leaking something the committee was discussing (clearly not fast enough for his liking) it seems the committee has something to offer the board. They in turn will approve some, most, all of the changes offered and then present a complete package for a simple yes or no vote by the membership at large.

It seems to me that the Jan meeting might offer up a product worthy of our consideration for the next scheduled meeting


Benefiting from a Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean cash. In this instance he would gain the moniker of "the man who finally got Sekani" and or then rode this wave to reelection

[Parks]

They in turn will approve some, most, all of the changes offered and then present a complete package for a simple yes or no vote by the membership at large.

This is unlikely.

Benefiting from a Conflict of interest does not necessarily mean cash.

Correct.

In this instance he would gain the moniker of "the man who finally got Sekani" and or then rode this wave to reelection

He would still be that guy whether he sold out the Board on this or not, so this seems a bit flimsy to me.

[Yoduh]

Jeff has successfully brought a charter change during his term on the Board.

That was a silly change, that should have never been needed changed in the first place because it should have been written as president in the first place.. I think it was. Nothing major has been changed.

[friable7]

Charter changes, which there haven't been any by the club in over 3 years, is suddenly something that people are worried about happening. The only change that's ever been voted, is that on whether or not the club should vote on who represents them. This is not very scary and borderline's on common sense. The charter review committee has been together for 8 months and have yet to bring any actual changes or recommendations to the club. The talking is plentiful. The action's are less than obvious because there aren't any. The what if's are so reaching that it reminds me of my 4 year old niece playing tea party:laughing: So if there is ever going to be a change to the charter it would be nice to have it happen any point within the next couple years. If the charter was changed to where there was a month long period for the club to review it, does it seem possible that disc golfers that are club members could vote via email or snail mail or telephone. It seems like if you would really like to see what the club had to say, than you would allow everyone to vote, not just the people that could make the date of the meeting. Pole the club as a whole or leave it alone.
Can things be fixed that actually need fixed, or do we just talk about how we should talk about how we fix it?:kissflowers:

Jeremy, Yes, we should all talk about how we talk with each other about how we fix things. Tim

[friable7]

Charter changes, which there haven't been any by the club in over 3 years, is suddenly something that people are worried about happening. The only change that's ever been voted, is that on whether or not the club should vote on who represents them. This is not very scary and borderline's on common sense. The charter review committee has been together for 8 months and have yet to bring any actual changes or recommendations to the club. The talking is plentiful. The action's are less than obvious because there aren't any. The what if's are so reaching that it reminds me of my 4 year old niece playing tea party:laughing: So if there is ever going to be a change to the charter it would be nice to have it happen any point within the next couple years. If the charter was changed to where there was a month long period for the club to review it, does it seem possible that disc golfers that are club members could vote via email or snail mail or telephone. It seems like if you would really like to see what the club had to say, than you would allow everyone to vote, not just the people that could make the date of the meeting. Pole the club as a whole or leave it alone.
Can things be fixed that actually need fixed, or do we just talk about how we should talk about how we fix it?:kissflowers:

Correct, there have been no actions from the Charter Review Committee. The talk has been plentiful. Something may happen... Tim

[General Scales]

So I have three questions.
1.) What change did the president bring to the charter?
2.) Why has the charter review committee been so slow to bring about or even suggest any sort of changes?
3.) If a charter change is presented, is it currently voted on by members and the board or is it a board only vote?

[Parks]

So I have three questions.
1.) What change did the president bring to the charter?

Changing the title of the Board position "Steward" to "President".

2.) Why has the charter review committee been so slow to bring about or even suggest any sort of changes?

They've talked to the Board about some things that need attention, but nailing down definite language and exactly how to fix a problem is not a trivial task.

3.) If a charter change is presented, is it currently voted on by members and the board or is it a board only vote?

According to the Charter, it is a vote by current members at a scheduled member meeting requiring 2/3 of the total vote to enact a change. The Board cannot change the Charter alone, unless there is a scheduled member meeting where a quorum of Board members show and no one else.

[friable7]

Changing the title of the Board position "Steward" to "President".



They've talked to the Board about some things that need attention, but nailing down definite language and exactly how to fix a problem is not a trivial task.



According to the Charter, it is a vote by current members at a scheduled member meeting requiring 2/3 of the total vote to enact a change. The Board cannot change the Charter alone, unless there is a scheduled member meeting where a quorum of Board members show and no one else.

I think that Lyle is correct on all points.

We have a President instead of a Steward as the only recent Charter change.

Looking at changes to an existing Charter is an amazingly difficult process. We have had fits and starts at this for well over a year-maybe two. Leslie, Bob, myself and others have gathered information on how to do the deed, including many examples of other entity Charters/Bylaws, "how to guides" and what we might want to reference. Other folk think it is good enough in its current state with a couple of possible tweaks. Looking at what we need in a Charter depends on where we think we are as an association (now there you'll find some differences in opinion!) and where we think we are going. Perhaps the incoming Board can give some direction. Then you need to ask; is it time to look at issues of non profit status directly, position ourselves to do so in the future, stipulate what we need to do to operate under another entites umbrella or continue our current business model? It would be far easier to start over from scratch than to amend what we have...not suggesting that, but it would be easier. Hard messy work ahead.

Lyle points out how I read the current Charter. If one member shows up for a Members Meeting and you have a Board Quorum, you can pass a Charter amendment. I am hoping that this issue gets on the agenda at a Member meeting some time in the near future.

Tim N.

[Yoduh]

I think that Lyle is correct on all points.

We have a President instead of a Steward as the only recent Charter change.

Looking at changes to an existing Charter is an amazingly difficult process. We have had fits and starts at this for well over a year-maybe two. Leslie, Bob, myself and others have gathered information on how to do the deed, including many examples of other entity Charters/Bylaws, "how to guides" and what we might want to reference. Other folk think it is good enough in its current state with a couple of possible tweaks. Looking at what we need in a Charter depends on where we think we are as an association (now there you'll find some differences in opinion!) and where we think we are going. Perhaps the incoming Board can give some direction. Then you need to ask; is it time to look at issues of non profit status directly, position ourselves to do so in the future, stipulate what we need to do to operate under another entites umbrella or continue our current business model? It would be far easier to start over from scratch than to amend what we have...not suggesting that, but it would be easier. Hard messy work ahead.

Lyle points out how I read the current Charter. If one member shows up for a Members Meeting and you have a Board Quorum, you can pass a Charter amendment. I am hoping that this issue gets on the agenda at a Member meeting some time in the near future.

Tim N.
As I read this I see lot's of questions surfacing with no direction. Does anybody have a proposal? If starting over is better in your opinion. Write out what this new charter might read like. If trimming is the best way can we see what issues might need to be addressed. The problems seem numerous but the solution cupboard is baron. Everybody seems afraid to say, I vote that we change the charter to... Maybe certain people think the charter is adequate... After 8 months of meetings, there hasn't been one proposed charter amendment by the committee on this two page document. When we voted on club members getting to vote for who fills in for our missing Reps, Tim voted that the board should keep appointing representatives of the club on the first vote. He admitted that it made sense that the club should elect it's reps, but because the committee hadn't talked about it, he stated that he felt that it needed to be adequate analyzed.. The next meeting the same proposal was brought up, this time, typed out on and passed around to the club. Tim again voted no, even though the committee had met. Gordy, Bob and Tim tried to curtail us from even voting about it, saying that, the committee needed to talk about how we change our bylaws, before actually changing them. Even if the change isn't done in the most proper way possible(which it was via our actual charter), there is no need to delay positive progress that helps our club exercise one of our two powers given. Or how about producing some language that says to change a charter bylaw, the club must be given 30 days notice. It was suggested but it wasn't really presented. Twice new legislation is shot down for reasons other than there being an actual problem with the change:yawn: Well there was more than likely an unsaid problem from board members who wanted to be able to appoint their buddy's instead of allowing the club to decide.

Has everybody seen the list of things that Jeff Crum (sky pilot) has accomplished? I want to see the list of what Gordy, Bob, Jon Verbarg and Tim N. have even proposed!?!? We have leaders that aren't, except for in title.. It is difficult to make this statement knowing that I will be working with at least 2 of these men. I know that they have passion for the game. It is only about our courses from October-March. The rest of the year it is the Inland Northwest series. While the series is demanding on them and well ran, it is not an excuse to put city course development on the back burner. A charter change that would be a welcome addition would be one that demanded some sort of action by board members. Something that would propel a reasonable amount of work or proposals during the "offseason". A meeting every 4-6 weeks. With back to back meetings being grounds for dismissal (if board member doesn't communicate their absence ahead of time), and a third miss in a row be an automatic dismissal. Missing 4 meetings in a year or 7 in a term being grounds for dismissal. Meeting every 4-6 weeks would mean that there is a minimum of 8 board meetings a year. Which there are probably as many right now. They are all bunched into a 6 month window though. Time to make our club and courses a year round project? I think so.:cheers:

Let's get some idea's on how to adjust/fix the charter... Shoot it out. Doesn't need to be written perfectly, just an idea:cheers: