L
laks
Guest
USACA Draft Constitution
The draft of the USACA Constitution is now available for review. I have provided the following input to the Constitution Committee:
Gentlemen:
I had promised to detail some of the things I noticed in the Draft Constitution. If there are things that I have misunderstood, please pardon me. These are simply my recommendations based on my understanding of the Draft. In order to keep this flowing, I will try to go Section by section:
Article III – Section 1: In essence, this section says that Clubs need to be members of a League/Association in order for it to be a member of USACA. Are there any provisions for Clubs that just are not members of a League to be a USACA member?
This necessary because, there are places in USA that just don’t have 8 clubs to form a League. They do play and we should allow them to be an Affiliate or an Associate Member so that they can benefit from some of USACA offering like Insurance.
Article III – Section 12: (i) The deadline for paying Dues is May 15. What happens if a Club has not paid its Dues? Is there another date by when they can pay with a penalty? In the past clubs have paid only during Election year and we need to make sure there are no loop holes this time around.
Article III – Section 12: (iii) Appendix C is not included. I am thinking this is something that will be addressed by the new Board. If so, then it needs to be one of the duties that the Constitution assigns them.
Article III – Section 13: (iii) NEC shows up here for the first time. This needs to be spelt out as Nomination and Election Committee (NEC)
Article III – Section 15: (i) The Board recommends Life Members, but how is the recommendation acted upon? Who approves, if it is the General Body then is it by a simple Majority?
Article III – Section 16: (i) Since the Board APPOINTS Honorary members there is not a need for any approval. The Board in a (simple) majority can terminate or should it be the General body that can over rule the board by a (simple vs 2/3 majority?)?
Article IV: General comments:
Kansas is between Nebraska and Oklahoma which are in the Central West Region and thus should be taken out of CE and put in CW Region.
Nevada and Utah (especially) have geographical proximity to Northern California and hence should be part of the North West Region.
Montana is not in the Constitution at all and should be placed in Central West. It appears that the Central East and Central West region have way too much area to cover. It might help to move North and South Carolina into the Atlantic Region. Move Tennessee and Alabama out of Central East and into South East. Move Mississippi, Louisiana and potentially Arkansas into South East
Article IV - Section 1 (iii) (f) Fresno is part of Northern California. That sentence should read:
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Northern California (including Fresno)
Article IV - Section 1 (iii) (g) Fresno is part of Northern California. That sentence should read:
Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Southern California South of Fresno.
Article VI – Section 2 (ii) Who breaks the tie for the first go around? Subsection iii talks of electing a Chairman and a Secretary. For the first go around there won’t be a Chairman.
Article VI – Section 3 (ii) states that the League Presidents shall elect 9 individuals to serve on the Board, while Section 8 (ii) states that, “The final selection of the nine (9) directors …. shall be the responsibility of the NEC.”
These two sections are in direct conflict with each other. Was the intent to have the League Presidents vote for the Directors? If so, Section 8 (ii) should talk about the NEC recommending 12 candidates for the League Presidents top vote on.
General observation - There are a number of places where things are restated. It appears that when things need to be restated a simple reference to the section where it was originally states should be the norm. This will avoid any future amendments being made only to the original reference and not to all subsequent restatements.
E.g.: Article VI - Section 8 (ii) should simply state:
(ii) The NEC shall select Board candidates as outlined in Section 3 (i)
Article VI – Section 3 (iv) the NEC shall break the tie by a (simple or 2/3) Majority?
Article VI – Section 23: Why have a Vice-Chairman of the Board (see Article VI – Section 7) when (s)he can’t act as the Chairman when the Chair is not present?
Article VII – Section 3 (a) states that the NEC recommends and the Board appoints the CEO, Exec. Secretary and the Treasurer. This conflicts with Article VIII – Section 3 (b) which says the CEO appoints the Exec. Secretary.
Article IX - Section 1 (iii) talks of max of 6 nominations out of which they will recommend 4 to be placed on the Election ballot. Why the limit of 6 and how can one enforce that limit? There could be 20 nominations and it makes sense for the NEC to dwindle it down to 4 that will contest the Elections. Is there an appeal process? It appears that the NEC is the “All Mighty” in USACA.
It appears that (iv) is a left over from a previous draft. The Nominations and Governance Committee looks like was replaced by the NEC.
General Comment – Need to state that Regional Directors are not compensated other than expenses.
Article X: (i) and (ii) restates what is said in Article VI section 26. Please word it such that these subsections reference Article VI section 26 or vice-versa.
(iii) and (iv) could be stated more clearly. Does the CEO, the Exec Secretary, Treasurer and the VPs get paid or not?
Article XIII – Section 4: Has no mention of the Regional Directors needing to attend the AGM. All Regional Directors MUST be required to attend the AGM and present a Regional Report. Article XIII Section 3 should include these reports in the Agenda.
Article XIII – Section 5 (iii) replace “President or Vice-President” with “Chairman or Vice-Chairman”
Article XIV – Section 2: Please include Regional Directors in the release from Individual Liability
These are simply my observations and recommendations and I am sure you will receive other comments which might conflict with some of mine. I trust you to use your judgment in coming up with the appropriate changes. If you need any clarification please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I will go over the document again and if there are any more recommendations I will put them forth.
Once again, please accept my heart felt gratitude for all your efforts.
Regards,
The draft of the USACA Constitution is now available for review. I have provided the following input to the Constitution Committee:
Gentlemen:
I had promised to detail some of the things I noticed in the Draft Constitution. If there are things that I have misunderstood, please pardon me. These are simply my recommendations based on my understanding of the Draft. In order to keep this flowing, I will try to go Section by section:
Article III – Section 1: In essence, this section says that Clubs need to be members of a League/Association in order for it to be a member of USACA. Are there any provisions for Clubs that just are not members of a League to be a USACA member?
This necessary because, there are places in USA that just don’t have 8 clubs to form a League. They do play and we should allow them to be an Affiliate or an Associate Member so that they can benefit from some of USACA offering like Insurance.
Article III – Section 12: (i) The deadline for paying Dues is May 15. What happens if a Club has not paid its Dues? Is there another date by when they can pay with a penalty? In the past clubs have paid only during Election year and we need to make sure there are no loop holes this time around.
Article III – Section 12: (iii) Appendix C is not included. I am thinking this is something that will be addressed by the new Board. If so, then it needs to be one of the duties that the Constitution assigns them.
Article III – Section 13: (iii) NEC shows up here for the first time. This needs to be spelt out as Nomination and Election Committee (NEC)
Article III – Section 15: (i) The Board recommends Life Members, but how is the recommendation acted upon? Who approves, if it is the General Body then is it by a simple Majority?
Article III – Section 16: (i) Since the Board APPOINTS Honorary members there is not a need for any approval. The Board in a (simple) majority can terminate or should it be the General body that can over rule the board by a (simple vs 2/3 majority?)?
Article IV: General comments:
Kansas is between Nebraska and Oklahoma which are in the Central West Region and thus should be taken out of CE and put in CW Region.
Nevada and Utah (especially) have geographical proximity to Northern California and hence should be part of the North West Region.
Montana is not in the Constitution at all and should be placed in Central West. It appears that the Central East and Central West region have way too much area to cover. It might help to move North and South Carolina into the Atlantic Region. Move Tennessee and Alabama out of Central East and into South East. Move Mississippi, Louisiana and potentially Arkansas into South East
Article IV - Section 1 (iii) (f) Fresno is part of Northern California. That sentence should read:
Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Northern California (including Fresno)
Article IV - Section 1 (iii) (g) Fresno is part of Northern California. That sentence should read:
Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Utah, Southern California South of Fresno.
Article VI – Section 2 (ii) Who breaks the tie for the first go around? Subsection iii talks of electing a Chairman and a Secretary. For the first go around there won’t be a Chairman.
Article VI – Section 3 (ii) states that the League Presidents shall elect 9 individuals to serve on the Board, while Section 8 (ii) states that, “The final selection of the nine (9) directors …. shall be the responsibility of the NEC.”
These two sections are in direct conflict with each other. Was the intent to have the League Presidents vote for the Directors? If so, Section 8 (ii) should talk about the NEC recommending 12 candidates for the League Presidents top vote on.
General observation - There are a number of places where things are restated. It appears that when things need to be restated a simple reference to the section where it was originally states should be the norm. This will avoid any future amendments being made only to the original reference and not to all subsequent restatements.
E.g.: Article VI - Section 8 (ii) should simply state:
(ii) The NEC shall select Board candidates as outlined in Section 3 (i)
Article VI – Section 3 (iv) the NEC shall break the tie by a (simple or 2/3) Majority?
Article VI – Section 23: Why have a Vice-Chairman of the Board (see Article VI – Section 7) when (s)he can’t act as the Chairman when the Chair is not present?
Article VII – Section 3 (a) states that the NEC recommends and the Board appoints the CEO, Exec. Secretary and the Treasurer. This conflicts with Article VIII – Section 3 (b) which says the CEO appoints the Exec. Secretary.
Article IX - Section 1 (iii) talks of max of 6 nominations out of which they will recommend 4 to be placed on the Election ballot. Why the limit of 6 and how can one enforce that limit? There could be 20 nominations and it makes sense for the NEC to dwindle it down to 4 that will contest the Elections. Is there an appeal process? It appears that the NEC is the “All Mighty” in USACA.
It appears that (iv) is a left over from a previous draft. The Nominations and Governance Committee looks like was replaced by the NEC.
General Comment – Need to state that Regional Directors are not compensated other than expenses.
Article X: (i) and (ii) restates what is said in Article VI section 26. Please word it such that these subsections reference Article VI section 26 or vice-versa.
(iii) and (iv) could be stated more clearly. Does the CEO, the Exec Secretary, Treasurer and the VPs get paid or not?
Article XIII – Section 4: Has no mention of the Regional Directors needing to attend the AGM. All Regional Directors MUST be required to attend the AGM and present a Regional Report. Article XIII Section 3 should include these reports in the Agenda.
Article XIII – Section 5 (iii) replace “President or Vice-President” with “Chairman or Vice-Chairman”
Article XIV – Section 2: Please include Regional Directors in the release from Individual Liability
These are simply my observations and recommendations and I am sure you will receive other comments which might conflict with some of mine. I trust you to use your judgment in coming up with the appropriate changes. If you need any clarification please do not hesitate to get in touch with me. I will go over the document again and if there are any more recommendations I will put them forth.
Once again, please accept my heart felt gratitude for all your efforts.
Regards,
