Does the league need a Board of Directors?
The idea as presented here is that there would be 5 or 7 owners that will stand as Directors of the league. Their job would be to consult with each other and determine which ideas should be forwarded to the rest of the ownership group for consideration.I am suggesting a make up along the following lines (this is not set in stone, just an abstract for your consideration):
- 4 or 6 owners are selected to sit on the board
- Should this be determined by Voting?
- By volunteering?
- The Commissioner will hold the 5th or 7th tie-breaking seat on the Board
- The Commissioner will remain involved in rules discussion
- The Commissioner will only vote on a proposal if the Board is deadlocked
- The Commissioner reserves the right to veto a rule if that change in rules requires a great deal of effort to implement from a technical perspective
Once a rule has made it through the Board, it will be presented to the rest of the league as follows:
- If a rule Passed the Board, it will be put to the general membership for voting
- If a rule did not Pass the Board, it will not be voted on in the current year, however the rule will still be forwarded to the general membership for consideration for future years
Other situations where the Board may be of value include some of the following:
- Rules discrepancies and disagreements
- i.e. the situation from a couple of years ago where the Beauforts were on the wrong end of a statistical anomoly and were eliminated from the playoffs for this reason
- Problem owners
- this does not happen often, but there have been a couple of instances where owners were a real problem
- i.e. Ryan Sinclair’s stunning departure from the league
- i.e. Scot Blanchet not showing up on Bidding Day
If everyone likes this idea, we can figure out what we want to call the Board. I just used that name for ease of communicating the idea to you.
I don't think that we need a BOD. The Commissioner can and should make changes and decisions as needed.
ReplyDeleteIf something is very provocative, it could go to a vote of the owners on a 50 plus one basis.
I think the list should be made at first by the longest standing members in the pool. this seems fair to people who have invested interest over all the years. and at the end of the first year, the 7 members decide on who to vote out (two members, this can be done diplomatically). each owner makes there case why they should stay on
ReplyDeletethe board. the directors vote and than elect two persons to leave. they are replaced in the same way. the remaining directors, vote on who they think should join the panel for the next year. and so on and so on. and you cannot sit on the panel for more than four years. Sounds fair?)
I can't really see the point to this.
ReplyDeleteFor rule changes: a small group of owners discuss, debate, and argue. Then bring it to the rest of the league to do it all over again??? Makes little sense.
For rule discrepancies: I think Dave has done an admirable job with this, and has thrown things out to the league for feedback when needed.
For bad owners: The two bad situations we have had (Ryan/Scott)likely would not have been resolved by this, and can you really see us actually booting anyone out?
And creating a BoD potentially creates the danger of an oligarchy within the league. The only reason I could see for something like this, would not be as a decision making body, but as a group who, if possible, could help our Commish with some of the work he does.
No, Andrew, you miss the point. There is no argue, debate, discuss when the BoG brings a complete proposal to the league. It's vote yes or no or don't vote and be ignored.
ReplyDeleteAnd we already have booted someone out...think about it...
Here is why I like the idea of a BoD.
ReplyDeleteThe simple truth is that we have some owners that do not participate all that much. One only look at the responses to this blog to get an idea of which owners do and do not participate on a regular basis.
The point of the BoD to me is to have a committee create the framework for rules which would subsequently be voted on by the rest of the league; also as necessary the BoD could assist in conflict resolution.
At the end of the day, all owners would be required to vote for changes to the league. The BoD would just be responsible for getting the discussion to a point where the ideas are fleshed out and ready to be voted on.
How long they have been in the pool should have ZERO to do with it. Best person for the job, not the guy that has stuck around the longest. (union mentality)
ReplyDeleteI don't mind the BoD as long as it reduces the work Dave has to do, I think the current system works ok... but if Dave is looking for some assistance then I am all for it.
BoD should be no more than 1/2 of the total league owners... maybe 1/3 (rounded down) is a good rule of thumb.
It seems like 5 is a good number for the board. I agree with Richard that service years accrued should not matter one iota, I think if the process is to reduce Dave's workload, it's probably a good idea to let Dave decide who he'd like on this board. But I'll vote for this, if it comes to that.
ReplyDelete