there's a lot to absorb in the first two.

electronic ballotting does not sound bad at the outset but as always...devils in the details.

do you think the membership will pay close attention compared to the last round?

thanks Dan.

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

See: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/..._string=usat;#849027

for my questions and comments.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

"do you think the membership will pay close attention compared to the last round?"

yes, i do.

personally, i'm in favor of electronic balloting. my one concern is here: "the ballot and the candidate information should be posted on USAT’s website simultaneously with the individual mailing of ballot and
candidate information to each member."

this means we get to know the contents of a ballot measure on the very same day we're allowed to vote on it. this is inherently undemocratic. everything about the election should be knowable 15 days, or 30 days, prior to the election.

usat's board has had months to draft a resolution, talk to its attorneys, debate the language. the members ought to at least have 2 weeks to sift through the language, ferret out trouble spots, debate the issues, persuade each other, perhaps check with thelr own attorneys. this proposal short circuits that.

but i do like electronic balloting in theory.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"See [my post] for my questions and comments"

i have a similar set of concerns, which i will post on the individual threads dealing with the proposals. i'd be obliged if you'd move with me over there to continue these discussions.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

10-4.

But, I must admit at this point, I have many more questions than anything of substance to offer.

---

Behold the turtle! He makes progess only when he sticks his neck out. (James Bryant Conant)
GET OFF THE F*%KING WALL!!!!!!! (Doug Stern)
Brevity is the soul of wit. (William Shakespeare)

Dan, who's driving this, and why? What does the BOD gain by bending over for the USOC? I assume the Elites think they will get more $$, but who else stands to gain from this?

"What does the BOD gain by bending over for the USOC?"

i think it's not a very good thing that our federation is headquartered in colorado springs. it's a company town, and the USOC is the company. because we're in colorado springs, our federation, its employees, all come from that industry, and that mindset.

you'll remember back when we were threatened with the loss of our NGB status, that is, we were threatened with decertification. some on the board said, 'maybe that's best for all concerned.' well, that set off a firestorm all the way to the top, and made national news.

the USOC would prefer that not happen again. hence verbiage such as this. i just think we should resist this. in point of fact, the USOC needs USAT's money more than USAT needs the USOC's money. decertification is not an option for the USOC, it knows that, and it would prefer that it is no longer an option that the members have as well. the best way for the USOC to make sure it never comes to that is not to change our bylaws. it's to be a good partner with us.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

One of these days, I'd wish they'd pass a bylaw that required that these sort of changes be accompanied by some sort of "layman's primer," so that it was easier to understand what's being proposed. I sense that you, Dan, are providing that, but I believe USAT ought to make it clear. The membership should not be required to decipher legalese to make a decision.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp