Pacific Coast Section Election Meeting

[mfp]

Below are some of the notes I made when I looked through the proposed bylaws last month:


Members of the section are being asked to vote themselves out of any further right to vote at the section level.

-- Section members disenfranchise themselves by approving the proposed bylaws. Section members will no longer be able to vote for their Vice Chair(s), Treasurer, and Representative to the UFSA National Board of Directors. (Section members already can't vote in any election for the PCS Section Chair or Secretary).

-- Furthermore, the members of the section would also be voting away their right to vote on any and all future changes to the bylaws. The proposed bylaws eliminate the right to ammend the bylaws by a vote of the members as well as the right of the members to eventually vote on any "time sensitive" changes made by the Executive Board.

-- The proposed bylaws eliminate the PCS Section Annual Meeting of the membership. Since with the new bylaws members will have voted anyway their right to vote on anything further, the membership meeting has no use from a governance and bylaw point. (That doesn't mean there couldn't be some sort of a meeting, just that it isn't required by the bylaws).

-- While the date and place of the Annual Meeting of the Executive Committee is mandated, the proposed bylaws don't require it to be an open meeting. (But again neither do the current bylaws)

-- The deadline to file as a candidate has been changed from Feb 15th to April 15th.

-- The proposal changes the number of Section Vice Chairs from three to one.

-- The proposed sole Vice Chair has no vote on anything, but is simply an "advisor". (It might be argued the Vice Chair could have a vote on the new Executive Committee if they are also a congress rep from their division. The proposal states "No one holding these offices may hold any division office" but congress reps are not officers.)

-- The current bylaws explicitly allow for the Section Rep to the national board to also hold a Section Officer position. The proposed section bylaws seem to neither explicitly permit or forbid the same.

-- The proposed bylaws add one additional member from each Division to the Sectional Executive Committee. (This now matches what the National bylaws define).

-- An explicit definition for the Section Officers and Executive Committee's terms is missing from the proposed bylaws. That seems very unwise. What's the PCS governance structure and who's in charge on May 11th if the proposed bylaws are approved?

-- The definition of a Quorum of the Executive Committee looks unclear and ripe for disagreements and trouble when it comes to "electronic meetings" by email.

[CadetVet]

See my comments below...

Originally Posted by mfp

Members of the section are being asked to vote themselves out of any further right to vote at the section level.

-- Section members disenfranchise themselves by approving the proposed bylaws. Section members will no longer be able to vote for their Vice Chair(s), Treasurer, and Representative to the UFSA National Board of Directors. (Section members already can't vote in any election for the PCS Section Chair or Secretary).

-- Furthermore, the members of the section would also be voting away their right to vote on any and all future changes to the bylaws. The proposed bylaws eliminate the right to ammend the bylaws by a vote of the members as well as the right of the members to eventually vote on any "time sensitive" changes made by the Executive Board.

-- The proposed bylaws eliminate the PCS Section Annual Meeting of the membership. Since with the new bylaws members will have voted anyway their right to vote on anything further, the membership meeting has no use from a governance and bylaw point. (That doesn't mean there couldn't be some sort of a meeting, just that it isn't required by the bylaws).

Disenfranchisement is one of the reasons that I do not support these revisions. Yes, the annual section meeting can be a pained experience, but it still should happen.

Originally Posted by mfp

-- The deadline to file as a candidate has been changed from Feb 15th to April 15th.

I tend to agree with the above change. Feb 15 is too far in advance to test the waters and put together a working group. That is why I didn't put my name in at that point - I couldn't assemble the VCs/Sec'y and Treasurer and didn't want to have it entirely fall upon me.

Originally Posted by mfp

-- The proposal changes the number of Section Vice Chairs from three to one.

-- The proposed sole Vice Chair has no vote on anything, but is simply an "advisor". (It might be argued the Vice Chair could have a vote on the new Executive Committee if they are also a congress rep from their division. The proposal states "No one holding these offices may hold any division office" but congress reps are not officers.)

I was made aware of the proposed by-laws one week before they were posted and had a bunch of arguments with people over these two issues. I saw no reason to reduce the size of the board - and frankly I still don't. These are big jobs and there is plenty of room for people to have official duties. The VC without rights was as far as I could get. Interestingly, the original proposal called for two officers (which was ridiculous).

Originally Posted by mfp

-- The current bylaws explicitly allow for the Section Rep to the national board to also hold a Section Officer position. The proposed section bylaws seem to neither explicitly permit or forbid the same.

-- The proposed bylaws add one additional member from each Division to the Sectional Executive Committee. (This now matches what the National bylaws define).

Agreed. It is a potential issue for discussion. Again, as between the two, I prefer the prior by-laws.

Originally Posted by mfp

-- An explicit definition for the Section Officers and Executive Committee's terms is missing from the proposed bylaws. That seems very unwise. What's the PCS governance structure and who's in charge on May 11th if the proposed bylaws are approved?

this falls into the "beats the *#@% department.

Originally Posted by mfp

-- The definition of a Quorum of the Executive Committee looks unclear and ripe for disagreements and trouble when it comes to "electronic meetings" by email.

The electronic meetings, etc., were another area of controversy. What I want to do is set up a Yahoo Group for the EC - this will allow for virtual discussions, etc., and a vote 2 weeks later that is tabulated in a reasonably open manner. If I become Section Chair, this will probably become a bit of a pain (I tend to be a bit loquacious), but I prefer chattiness to disenfranchisement.

[PhilReaston]

Does anyone know how the meeting went?

[seven6ty]

They did a lot of clapping?

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by PhilReaston

Does anyone know how the meeting went?

Fairly quickly after Frank Van Dyke was knocked out of fencing and got the "Golden Swords" awards handed out. The new bylaws were explained and approved on a voice vote. (An aside: Though I'm all in favor of enfranchisement of the general membership, as it was explained the Section is run by the divisions and reports to the USFA so it makes sense to limit voting to the Division Chairs and Representatives to the USFA Congress. Which was what I saw as the major change. The actual Rationale for Sections as I understand it was put on larger tournaments back when it was difficult to get many fencers together.).

Frank Van Dyke stepped down after 10+ years as Section Chair.
New Chair is Gary Zeiss from Southern California.
Secretary: is I believe a young woman from Sonoma whose name escapes me.
Treasurer (was split from Secretary position): Valerie Rossenblatt of EMFC (NorCal)
Actually Valerie was voted in as treasurer as she was absent and couldn't defend herself.
The only actively contested position was Representative to the USFA and was won by Cathy Shifley(sp?) from North Coast.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Cathy Shifley(sp?)

Kathy Schifferle.

-B

[Dev]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Secretary: is I believe a young woman from Sonoma whose name escapes me.

Emily DeOrnellas.

[oso97]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

The only actively contested position was Representative to the USFA and was won by Cathy Shifley(sp?) from North Coast.

Who was contesting it?

[KD5MDK]

Other candidates nominated were Jonathan Jeffries and Terry Dix.

[jjefferies]

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

Other candidates nominated were Jonathan Jeffries and Terry Dix.

Yeah, she rolled right over us. No contest. Afterwards Terry and I congratulated each other on our escape.

[Purple Fencer]

Originally Posted by jjefferies

Yeah, she rolled right over us. No contest. Afterwards Terry and I congratulated each other on our escape.

Yeah....she's cuter than both of you (and probably has a beter hairstyle than Terry....not that I have room to talk there!)

Luck to all with the new leadership...