Early Resignations by Board Members a Bad Trend.

Dead wood? Depart!!

They've actually wasted more money that it will cost to replace them, no?

Tom Klem

"Bruce Draney" wrote in message
...
Strange as it may sound, I believe that it is a very bad precedent for
duly elected members of the USCF Executive Board to resign before their
terms are up.

Since 2001, a bad trend has developed that when elections go poorly for
the group in power, that those who were in the previous administration
decide that it is better to quit than it is to remain as minority
dissentors on the Board to give a contrary voice to current policies of
the new administration.

Special elections cost a lot of money. They are even more expensive
under One Member One Vote election procedures. Elections to the Board
are only supposed to be held every two years. When Board members
resign, there is no continuity as new people are added to the Board who
are minimally effective because they are like lame ducks, merely serving
out the term of someone who quit.

Not only that when people quit, they are in effect abandoning their duty
to serve as elected representatives of the voters who trusted them by
putting them in there.

Filling a slot for one year for a resigned Board member of a troubled
organization is not a particularly appealing job, and when good
candidates need be found, they are in short supply because few people
want to be a rubber stamp or a silent dissenting newcomer on a Board
that is already firmly under the control of one particular faction.

In my view, there should be three reasons for a sitting Board member to
resign their position early and they a

a) Illness or family matters that necessitate a withdrawal from
Board membership. Fan Adams for example resigned because of
illness. The death of one's spouse or children would be a
good reason for a Board member to resign.

b) Malfeasance or misfeasance of duty. Proof that a person had
betrayed the trust or responsibility of their position as a
Board member, would be a justifiable reason to quit before
one's term expired.

c) Blatant conflict of interest. If a Board member was
involved in a blatant conflict of interest that was enriching
himself at the expense of the organization he was elected to
serve, that would in my opinion be a good reason to quit.

These in my view, are NOT good reasons to resign a position as a duly
elected Board member:

a) The poor performance of an Executive Director. Frankly speaking if
you will pardon the pun, it is the ED's job to be held acountable for
the performance of the Federation. The Board President lives in another
state and does not manage (or mismanage) the daily affairs of the
organization. If the ED fails to meet minimum standards set down by the
Board, then the entire Board should hold the ED accountable and
discipline him, NOT have the President resign because the ED didn't do a
good job.

b) Because someone else that just took power, criticizes you. All too
often, in organizations like USCF which is terribly factionalized, you
get the dogpile on the loser sydrome, where the winners want to rub the
losers' noses in it as to how bad a job they did, so they criticize and
complain, until the last vestiges of the losers of the campaign finally
give up and quit, giving even more power and control to the current
winners.

c) Because of what is said by people on this forum. This forum is
never going to cut whomever is in charge any slack if mistakes are
made. The motto of this forum, is "off with his/her head." That is the
nature of this forum. However, this forum should not be convincing
sitting Board members to quit, because by quitting they are hurting the
organization they were elected to try and serve.

Just my two cents worth, which probably is worth about two cents.

Best Regards,

Bruce

"Bruce Draney" wrote ...

b) Because someone else that just took power, criticizes you. All too
often, in organizations like USCF which is terribly factionalized, you
get the dogpile on the loser sydrome, where the winners want to rub the
losers' noses in it as to how bad a job they did, so they criticize and
complain, until the last vestiges of the losers of the campaign finally
give up and quit, giving even more power and control to the current
winners.

Bruce,

For the record, I don't believe the three winners in the recent Board
election (Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz) have criticized the previous Board
for its performance. On the contrary, I have specifically stated it was not
Frank Camaratta's fault if Frank Niro withheld information.

Tim Hanke

In article 6oR5b.358086$uu5.70321@sccrnsc04, Tim Hanke says...
Bruce,

For the record, I don't believe the three winners in the recent Board
election (Marinello, Hanke, and Schultz) have criticized the previous Board
for its performance. On the contrary, I have specifically stated it was not
Frank Camaratta's fault if Frank Niro withheld information.

Tim Hanke



It may not be Frank C's fault, however, Frank C. did have a responsibility and
he is still accountable. There is a difference.

Kevin L. Bachler

"Tom Klem" wrote in message
news:woV5b.113566$kP.70532@fed1read03...

When you say accountable, exactly what do you mean? Is his mommie going to
send him to his room?

It may not be Frank C's fault, however, Frank C. did have a
responsibility
and
he is still accountable. There is a difference.

Kevin L. Bachler

Kevin is an unlicensed accountant. He must know what he meant to say.

StanB