[sac-board] Re: SAC Constitution
- From: david fredericksen <david.fredericksen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: sac-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 10:16:33 -0700
"Stanley A. Gorodenski" wrote:
> 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.
Stan,
I think that you are probably right and I would love to see the "fresh,
new blood" come forward and take an office. I put myself up for properties
just because I have a big truck and to end the ackward silence that followed
when I asked for nominations for Properties Officer. I will gladly let
anyone who really wants this position to have it.
Your Outgoing SAC President
Clear Skies,
David
Other related posts:
