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]

Originally Posted by 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,

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.

1. Already on current agenda
2. Allowed as New
3. Tabled for next agenda

Originally Posted by Parks

... 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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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.

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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

1. he preceded alone without continuous board direction and support.
2. for an extended length of time represented that he did in fact represent the board and negotiated with parties without board direction
3. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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

1. he preceded alone without continuous board direction and support.
2. for an extended length of time represented that he did in fact represent the board and negotiated with parties without board direction
3. 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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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 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?

[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]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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.

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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

Correct.

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

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]

Originally Posted by Parks

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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?

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