A number of documents pertaining to the Board’s proposed bylaw amendments have now been posted on USAT’s website. Here is a summary of the issues:
CHANGE THE ELECTION DISTRICTS. The 2004 Petition (henceforth 04P) created eight separate districts with both geographic integrity and relatively equal populations (of annual members). The current board accepts the one district – one director concept of 04P, but wants to change the eight districts to match the current USAT regions.
Problem #1: There are 10 regions in USAT, so to avoid increasing the board’s size, the current board proposal (CBP) proposes merging the three smallest districts (Pacific Northwest, Rocky Mountain, and Midwest into a single district. That means Wisconsin and Minnesota will be in the same district as Washington, Oregon, Alaska, and Hawaii. So much for geographical integrity.
Problem #2: Under the 04P, California was its own district and still is one of the two most populous. Under the CBP, California is merged with Arizona and Nevada (into the Southwest District), becoming the largest district (7313 annual members, according to the board’s own figures). Meanwhile, the smallest district is the Southeast, with just 3834 members (the Southeast Region has Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the panhandle of Florida). So much for one-person, one-vote.
Problem #3: The CBP retains the 04P requirement to redistrict: “Redistricting shall occur when the largest region has at least double the annual members of the smallest region” . Which means if CA/AZ/NV gain just a little vis a vis the Southeast Region, we will trigger an immediate redistricting election. Is this good planning?
Lew’s comment: The idea of making the regions and the voting districts one and the same isn’t all bad – though the current board makes it sound like this was a problem introduced by Dan and me. Baloney: the regions and the voting districts were MUCH MORE DIVORCED under the bylaws before 04P. Michigan and Ohio have always been in the Mideast Region, while Texas has always been in the South Midwest – BUT THEY WERE ALSO BOTH IN THE CENTRAL REGION FOR VOTING PURPOSES!! My question is this: if the two have to be equivalent (they never were before), isn’t it more logical to change the regions, rather than creating unfair voting districts?
LENGTH OF TERMS. The 04P introduced one-year terms, the CBP wants to change that back to two-year terms. Fine in concept – but there are some problems:
Problem #1: Later this month, we will elect the first board under the new bylaws, with the terms of the eight general directors to begin on July 1, 2005 and end July 1, 2006. But if the CBP gets approved, we will be automatically extending the terms of those newly-elected members by six months to 12/31/06. Not the end of the world, I suppose: just a little weird.
Problem #2: If the CBP passes, the board would be elected on a staggered cycle – four one year, four the next. Has its benefits, of course, but it also means one-half the country would be disenfranchised each year.
ELECTION SCHEDULE. The 04P changed the election cycle 180 degrees. We would hold the election in January/February and the new board would take office on July 1. Under the old system, the new board took office on January 1 and found itself stuck with whatever decisions had been made for the upcoming year by the outgoing board. So if license fee amounts became a big issue (for example), the new board found it couldn’t do anything about it until a year and half after the election. The July 1-July 1 cycle meant that board members could make decisions about the upcoming year, and then would still be there to implement the decisions. The idea was improved accountability.
As you might expect, however, the CBP wants to change the cycle back to where it was before. Didn’t even want to give the new one a try.
ELECTION RULES. The 04P made numerous changes in election procedures. The CBP makes more changes – and at least from this viewer’s vantage point, the CBP changes are improvements on the O4P.
TERM LIMITS. The 04P said six-years lifetime and you are done. The CBP to make it so that one person can serve up to six years, but then would have to sit out an equivalent period before running for (or presumably, being appointed to) office again. No limit (other than how long you might live) to how many terms you could actually serve.
SUNSHINE POLICY. I’ll break this one down point by point:
Minutes of Board Meetings: The 04P says 10 days, the CBP wants 40 days. But the current board hasn’t even lived up to the more relaxed standard so far.
Minutes of Committee Meetings. The 04P says 10 days, the CBP wants 40 days. But not a single set of minutes has been posted in the six plus months the 04P rule has been in place.
Financial Statements. BEWARE HERE!!! The CBP says “no change” (from the rather strict requirements of the 04P) on one page, but then goes on to strike out the ENTIRE language on financial disclosure on the next page. This is fundamental information, and they apparently don’t want to disclose any of it.
Freedom of Information. The 04P gives any annual member the right to demand publication within seven days of just about any federation document. The CBP would leave this unchanged. NOTE: My one and only demand under this provision was made 14 days ago – and so far, no publication (or other response).
AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS. Beware here as well. The board says there will be a second proposal on the ballot giving them the right to amend 95% of the bylaws without our consent. BUT YOU WILL LOOK IN VAIN ON USAT’S WEBSITE (OR ELSEWHERE) FOR THE PRECISE WORDING OF THIS PROPOSAL. They tell you what the current language is – they just don’t tell you what language they intend to replace it with.
Note: The discussion here on slowtwitch has apparently produced one positive result. The most recent amendment to the “open letter” says that Art. XXII on Sunshine Policy will be off-limits to board-only amendments. Shows the board can indeed act quickly if it really wants to. But, if the board’s main proposal passes, they will have already eliminated their duty to disclose anything financial – and will have substantially diluted the other provisions.
