“Why 2,500 when you know that is roughly 100% of the typical voter turnout?”
perhaps i can add a bit of light to our thinking. it might seem as if lew and i changed a lot of the bylaws, but we changed not even a third, and we stuck strictly to the issues of representation and disclosure. we wanted to change a little as possible. our only interest was in bolstering the bylaws in areas where people might (and have) taken advantage of election loopholes. i don’t imagine the original framers of the bylaws thought such advantages might be sought, but if not they thought better of their fellow man than turns out to have been prudent.
anyway, what the original bylaws say is that 5% of the membership could trigger a special meeting. the idea of the special meeting is no longer very workable, if it ever was, but a special election is. not wanting to change the bylaws any more than we felt necessary, lew and i kept in place the 5% number, but made this a special election instead of a special meeting.
two other points. i believe you brought up the issue of electronic petitions. i guess i don’t really have a serious problem with that. that would allow you to get to your 2500 (roughly 5%) threshold somewhat easier. however, i think that such a petition would have to have, on its electronic page, an analysis of what this means. especially financially.
otherwise, realize that as a fellow californian we have in this state just what lew and i are proposing for the federation. in most cases, and i mean in the GREAT majority of cases, the initiatives on which you and i vote are relegated to a once per year vote. we don’t get sample ballots in the mail every month. only in an extreme case (e.g., governor recall) do we have an off-calendar vote. it seems to me to be a pretty smooth system.
perhaps someone can explain to me why a year represents an ungodly interminable time period to wait for a question to be placed on a ballot, but it’s barely the wink of an eye when a person’s name must again be placed on a ballot.
Hello… I’m returning to the sport after a five year recovery and imagine my shock when I find the degree of DIS-organization in our sports governing body!!!
Anyway, I’ll spare everyone of the opinions I have after reading the presented materials etc… and perhaps make a suggestion on the suggested 2500 signatures debate.
Instead of a set amount of signatures , why not make the requirement a minimum % of the current membership base? This could allow the process to act in a consistent and reasonable format independent of the actual number of members… I think anyway.
Also, this % format could be divided into individual regions of the USAT membership base and could be based on the actual numbers per each region… I’m just shooting from the hip here, but it seems this could allow an equal voice to ALL USAT membership regions and not just the larger membership bases.
Just an example , but a % format based on a per region format would eliminate the possible problems associated with the larger groups completely dictating the majority of the outcomes and Petitions of Change… Thus, making it a true measure of the National Membership Base.
Under the two standing proposals, I see only one in which this process is possible and structured in such a way to allow enough time to properly debate and “work through” any petitions that may be raised. That would be the new one. I see a year as being just enough time to properly debate and examine the true potential and possible flaws of ANY new proposal… If for some reason a topic is quick to reach the minimum , then it’s without a doubt a serious enough matter for immediate consideration. There would of course be no doubt of the petitions overall importance to the current membership base .
I’m sorry if I covered something that has already come and gone, but if not, how does the % theory hold water in this whole process. Any thoughts?
Oreo
P.S. How the hell do I stip this strike through stuff??? Argh… sorry
I have to say that while I support the purpose of the petition, and many of its articles, I think it goes overboard in a few places.
The one year term seems pretty short, and can lead to a state of perpetual candidacy. Similarly, term limits are good in theory, but sometimes lead to a situation where good help is hard to find. I do find that I am disgusted when I see candidates whose entire platform is “I’ve been here forever. Vote for me again!” but if it is someone who does a good job, I have no problem with that.
Other than that, it looks good to me. Good luck in your region.
“I support the purpose of the petition, and many of its articles, I think it goes overboard in a few places.”
just so you have the right picture, here are your options:
a set of bylaws where (much like the united states, let us say) there is a vehicle for amendments, amendments are adopted from time to time, amendments that can be placed on the ballot by either you or your representatives and which cannot be adopted without the general assent of the entire membership.
a set of bylaws in which amendments are proposed and carried ONLY by vote of 8 elected officials and 3 pro athletes.
OK, after having time to calm down, I’d like to apologize for my previous outburst in this thread. It was inappropriate.
However I am getting sick of people getting involved in a “discussion” but completely ignoring anything that is written by someone other than themselves. I get the distinct impression that some people are posting for the sole reason of stirring up crap. I took the bait and crossed the line. My mistake, I apologize.
That makes 2 times this week I should nominate myself for Jackass of the Week. And it’s only Wednesday.