[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution
- From: "Stanley A. Gorodenski" <stan_gorodenski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 15:32:57 -0800
Gene A. Lucas wrote:
>The Two Years rule is, in my humble opinion, the BEST THING the club
>ever adopted. It FORCES new blood to take over the reins every so
>often. IMHO, the MAIN reason SAC was formed, and become highly
>successful, is this single provision in our Constitution and Bylaws.
>
>
I know what you are saying and I agree with it, but at the same time
there is a big difference between possibly extending terms of an officer
or board member from 2 to 3 or 4 years as part of the formal by-law
process vs. an open ended occupation of a position for 18 or more years
as had occurred in the other club you mentioned. Perhaps the 2 year
limit could be expanded some.
>The situation that forced this and the formation of SAC in the first
>instance was an unfortunate situation in which certain personalities had
>taken over the other main club in town, and refused to even consider ANY
>changes or progressive ideas. IMHO, that situation could re-occur at
>any time if we don't force a change in officers every so often. Once
>somebody gets into office, they can and likely will rapidly adopt the
>idea that since nobody else is volunteering, then THEIR ideas are the
>only ones that need any consideration.
>
From my observation, during the 15 to 20 years that I have off and on
been a member of the club I see a few of the same individuals as board
members or officers over the years. Granted, they may have not occuppied
the same position more than two years in a row, or may have hopped from
one position to another, but it does give the appearance that there is
an 'establishment' , so to speak, or a 'click' that is running the club.
I am sure this is not the case from some of my observations, but still
it does give one pause to think that maybe there is not the degree of
fresh blood one would expect from the current two year limit.
Stan.
Other related posts:
