Discussion: USOF Board Elections

My mother sent this out to the clubnet, but was wondering if anyone on AP could comment about some of the new changes to the USOF board.


I have some questions regarding the changes to the Bylaws and Articles of
Incorporation:

With no regional directors, how will USOF ensure that all members of the USOF BOD
are not members of the same O-club (for example, all 12 directors are members of
NEOC and the USOF BOD members continue to nominate other NEOC members to the USOF
BOD)?

Also, this slate assumes that the Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation passes.

As USOF is a 501c3 corporation incorporated in the state of Virginia, Virginia
corporate law.

Can someone on the USOF BOD please explain the voting procedure under Virginia law
for changes to the Articles of Incorporation?

See:
?§ 13.1-886. Amendment of articles of incorporation by directors and members
?
D. Unless this Act or the board of directors, acting pursuant to subsection B,
requires a greater vote, the amendment to be adopted shall be approved by each
voting group entitled to vote on the amendment by more than two-thirds of all the
votes cast by that voting group. The articles of incorporation may provide for a
greater or lesser vote than that provided for in this subsection or a vote by
separate voting groups so long as the vote provided for is not less than a majority
of all the votes cast on the amendment by each voting group entitled to vote on the
amendment at a meeting at which a quorum of the voting group exists. ?(emphasis
added)

Does it have to be ?approved by more than two-thirds of all the votes cast by that
voting group??

If the Articles of Amendment pass at the AGM when is the change effective?
Must the Articles of Amendment be filed with state of Virginia first?

Caroline Fleming
NEOC

all 12 directors are members of NEOC

=> epic BOD fail

Sorry, knee-jerk reaction there :)

Is that possible?

Good morning all,

First of all thanks to Caroline Fleming and the members of the NEOC for raising this issue. The goal of USOF is to have a functioning and vital board that effectively reflects, and works for, its membership.

There are a variety of issues that are addressed here. I will take a moment to address the regional representation issue. I will address the voting procedures issues on club net.

I have had a few people express a concern that one club is going to attempt to stack the board. I know that some people (bshields) do it in jest but for some it is a very real issue.

Because the members of the board are on staggered terms (end in 2009, 2010, 2011, etc), the only way for one or two clubs to stack the board is if the membership will allow it to do so. After this years AGM you will know the board composition and can react in 2010. As well in 2011 for 2010.

Over the weekend USOF VP Administration Rosemary Johnson posted a list of candidates as well as those who are in mid term. Here is the club representation:

Term expires in 2010
Western Connecticut OC, Bay Area OC (2), Georgia OC, DVOA, San Diego O, Carolina O Klub, Indiana Crossroads O

Term expires in 2011
DVOA, San Diego O, New England OC, Minnesota OC, Western Pennsylvania OC

Current proposed slate (Term expires in 2012)
Los Angeles OC, Quantico OC, Columbia River OC

While this geographic distribution is not perfect, I feel based on my limited experience that is fair and representative. In addition, those board members I have met truly care about the sport and the organization first.

Are there holes in the map? Yes. But what can we do about it? The most important thing that you can do is RUN FOR A BOARD SEAT if you feel that your region is not fairly served. As of Rosemary's notice there is one vacancy. Nominations will be taken from the floor.

I hope that this adequately addresses this question. If you would like to discuss this further just call me at 410.802.1125.

I look forward to seeing all of you at the AGM on the 27th in Cle Elum.

Sincerely,
Glen Schorr
Executive Director
United States Orienteering Federation

e: glen_schorr@usorienteer.org
p: 410.802.1125

IMO, the concerns about a single club dominating the USOF BOD are greatly exaggerated (although there is an unnamed club -- not NEOC -- that could at some point be over-represented).

However, I am concerned that the elimination of regional representation would greatly reduce the possibility of having a geographically diverse Board. While I agree with Glen (and others) that the current Board members are dedicated to improving our sport, regional representation has at least theoretically assured that the concerns of member clubs (and club members) can be addressed by the national governing body. If the reality has not lived up to the promise, I cannot possibly see how elimination -- as opposed to refinement -- would be better.

Most of the world's democratic governments include regional representation in their structures. It is a model whose basic elements have withstood the test of time.

All of the proposed changes to be voted upon at the 2009 USOF AGM have merits. However, the elimination of regional representation in Bylaws Proposal #1 is a fatal flaw, and, for that reason alone (its other components are fine), I would urge USOF clubs to defeat it.

I understand why countries need geographical representation in their government. Why is it so crucial for USOF?

The concerns of my club may be nothing like the concerns of other clubs in my region, but more like one of a similar size on the other side of the country. I'm not convinced that we need to encode geographical variety into the rules, rather than just let the clubs take care of diversity at the ballot box.

First, let me say that I strongly support the bylaws changes, and urge a vote in favor.

I have served 18 years on the USOF board, as VP of Program Development since 1993 and as Midwest Regional Representative for 2 years before that. In that time, I've seen a lot of change in the need for regional representatives at the board level. Many of the things that regional representatives were intended to accomplish (coordinating club schedules, helping start new clubs, organizing regional championships and service awards) can be done without actually serving on the national board. There's no reason that regions can't continue to organize and govern within their own region.

USOF is having a hard time getting enough candidates to run for national office. We currently have a vacancy for one of the board positions, even without trying to elect regional reps. There are regional reps who have never attended a board meeting and who do little outside of meetings. They are on the board only because they were coaxed, cajoled and persuaded to run because their region needed a rep. It makes no sense to have board seats for which the nominating committee and others spend coutless hours trying to fill, and then have a board member who doesn't show for meetings. Yes, there are some great regional reps, and the regional rep system has been a great training ground for people to learn how the board functions and later become officers. But, our board is so large that it is inefficient and unwieldy. I feel it would be much better to have a small, very dedicated board that communicates well, than to have the larger number of people that we try to operate with today.

Geographic representation or lack therof should not make any significant difference in USOF. A much bigger issue concerns whether we should focus on competition, athletes, and teams, or on inclusiveness, recreation and getting more people involved regardless of skill. You've seen this debated on attackpoint and elsewhere, and there will doubtless continue to be a significant division of opinion.

If one club were to dominate the board, so what? In general, do all the key players in a club agree with each other on major USOF issues? For a national governement, regional representation makes sense to see that local needs get met, stimulus money or pork (depending how you look at it) gets brought home, etc. But in a national governing body for a sport, location just doesn't make that much difference. I just don't see championship events, development money, training camps, or whatever being concentrated in one area or one club - that's simply not in the best interest of the sport.

The regional representative system was a worthwhile idea when it was implemented in 1991. In some areas, USOF moved forward as a result. But today, I think the regional representative system just creates more work, especially for the nominating committee, and the board's size impairs its ability to get action taken quickly and efficiently.

If you're among those who strongly feel that we should continue to have regional representatives, I hope that means that you are willing to run for election, and willing to fulfill the duties including attending board meetings and participating in discussion and decisions in a timely fashion.

With a new Executive Director, this is an exciting time, and we need board members who are willing to work hard to support the new director and move USOF forward.

Mike makes good points about the size of the Board. I am not opposed to reducing of the number of Board members, or any of the other structural changes (like 3-year terms, electing officers from within, ...) -- just the elimination of regionality (regional reps and all references to regions in the bylaws).

As I said earlier, I believe that geographic diversity is important. However, I am actually more concerned with the need for clubs to have a specific "go-to" person to bring their views/concerns to the Board. The regional reps provide that -- even if they actually live in a different region.

IIRC, PG was a member of the committee (or task force, or whatever it was called) that worked on the original regional representation proposal back in the late 80s. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about it now.

Most of the world's democratic governments include regional representation in their structures.

They may, but it is my understanding that in most parlimentary democracies, representaion is proportional to ideology/party, and geography is secondary, if important at all. I think it seems more important in the US system due to the view of the US as more of a "federation of states" than a "country" (at least when they set these things up).

The analog for USOF, of course, would be proportional representation based on club membership. That is the model that mirrors democracy in a federation. Geograpgy is both an artefact of the fact that club membership happens to be geographical (but it doesn't have to be), and a red herring, IMHO.

Thus, under such a system, NEOC would be closer to taking over the federation. This is presented, apparently, as axiomatically bad, but I don't accept that axiom. Why is it bad? Who cares if NEOC takes over? What's the downside to such a prospect? I feel the consternation in this thread (especailly on clubnet), far outweighs the risk, and IMHO seems like FUD. Would that such vigorous debate occur over issues such as high performance, training, and event quality, not to mention the unanswered question as to whether or not I'll be looked upon as a cheater if I wear a GPS wristwatch to USOF sanctioned meets that don't happen to be WRE meets.

Now, back to regional representation. I sat two terms on the USOF board. I can't recall a single issue, initiative, etc., where regional representation mattered. IMHO, the evidence is that it does not matter. What evidence is there that it does? Without regional representation, a club can take issues to the VP of club servcices. I have not looked at the new layout, but if there is no longer a VP of club services, a club can take issues to the President. It doesn't matter. The postulation here is that without regional representation, the clubs will have no one to go to, and I ain't buyin' it.

My experience, and I think common sense, indicates that the present system is dysfunctional. Pretty much everything Mike said rings true, based on my two terms. So, time to try something new. It was ridiculous that regional reps didn't show up for a single meeting. It was ridiculous that there was so much arm twisting to fill that monstrous-sized board. I mean, lets face it, people like me were on that board.

I say lets see some evidence that the present system is a Good Idea, and if no such evidence exists, then dump it and move on.

JMHO, of course.