Observations & PRA BOD Nomination Process in 3 Parts!

[Dean_Dolph]

I decided to post this here although it could have just as well been placed in other forums including Non-Topic. And I’m sure there are those who would vote for that! Since I’ve reached an age where I can play the ole country philosopher I’m taking the opportunity. I may not play it well but play I will! Be forewarned that I suffer from GregGitis (hey, Greg, lov ya man!) and consequently can’t present anything as concisely as Doug R. I’m not sure there is a cure and I’m envious.

I’ve been thinking (and that is dangerous for ya’all even if ya don’t know it!) about political processes. In particular, the one that is the most visible at the moment and closest to our heart, the PRA BOD. I’m not a political scientist or even a student and in fact I ignore politics if at all possible. But they are so intertwined with our day to day activities they are hard to avoid. If I have put any of you to sleep already then feel free to take a well deserved nap! For the rest of you, I ain’t done and by continuing to read you will have come out of the closet and declared yourself a masochist.

The reason I’m writing (and there has to be a reason for every action) this is because I have some observations I want to make and to also try and interpret the PRA by-laws section on the BOD election. I welcome any comments on my observations and interpretation. I’m not going to expound on how my observations apply, if they do, to PRA politics but will leave that part to you.

My first observation is that when I set down to write this I thought I had a number of observations to make! But now that I’m actually typing I can only think of one. I think I’m having a senior moment as opposed to a juvenile one but trust me; I may revert at any time. But then again, maybe not!

I’m going to break this up for those with short attention spans like GyroRon so it will be easier to reply to and provide a point for a McDonald’s interlude.

[Dean_Dolph]

My second observation, which isn’t a revelation since others more observant than I have stated it succinctly many times, is that with any elected official or candidate you need to pay attention to what they do and not what they say. Or to put it another way talk is cheap! But this is sort of paradoxical since we have to listen in order assess whether what the promoter is saying is wishful thinking or actually a possibility.

What I’m suggesting here is that with our BOD candidates we need to make intelligent choices and decide if their proposals and agenda are realistic and if so in what time frame. If elected we shouldn’t hold them accountable for proposals that require a timeline that may extend past their time in office. Just getting a proposal accepted may take more than one term of office. And it might have to be continuously reintroduced to a new BOD in order to make it happen. However, there does have to be a point where the proposal presenter recognizes that it doesn’t have merit or support and needs to be dropped. It is a waste of BOD resources to continually have to revisit proposals that have no chance of being implemented.

This reminds me of a place I was told about many years ago (I believe it is the main lobby at Ford headquarters) by a former working colleague. Once I describe it then if someone recognizes it and I have it wrong then I would appreciate a correction since I would like to visit this site.

It seems that there is a very, very, heavy object (a ball?) that hangs on a cable from the tall ceiling of this lobby and is free to swing. You can run and bounce off this object or hit it with a sledge hammer without any visible effect. But if you just lean on it, and continuously apply pressure, it will eventually start to move. It is a perfect demonstration of inertia and it is my understanding that is the purpose of the exhibit.

In mentioning this object I’m saying that we, you and me, the PRA in general, and the BOD in particular, have a lot of built in inertia and for any changes or new proposals to be implemented we need to throw away the hammer that keeps getting used on this Forum and instead continuously apply pressure.

[Dean_Dolph]

Okay, now on to my interpretation of the BOD nomination process as shown on the PRA web site in the by-laws. I have them printed out and they reside in a binder with our local chapter’s by-laws so they are easy for me to refer too. I just checked the web site and there isn’t any indication that they have been revised since I printed them out so assume I’m dealing with the latest revision. I’m going to refer to only that part of the election article that deals with the nominations so if you want all the gory details (and it is worth the effort) then you will need to go to the PRA web site.

Article X deals with the BOD election and nominations.

1. There is a nominating committee that collects nominees names and determines the willingness and eligibility of those nominated and selects those to be placed on the ballot. The number of nominations is limited to 3 times the number of board seats up for election.

The by-laws provide the nominating committee with guidelines they are to follow in determining who will be placed on the ballot. Incumbents willing to serve another term are automatically placed on the ballot.

There are three classes of directors with each class serving alternating three year terms. There are presently eleven BOD members (the by-laws provide for as few as 5 with 11 being the max.) which means that two of the classes have four members and one will have three.

I don’t know what class is up for reelection this year. They should have been introduced at last years life members meeting as provided for in the by-laws but if they were then I missed that part. It doesn’t appear that a designated parliamentarian is present during these meetings and consequently it is easy to forget what the by-laws require.

2. Nominations are made by life members who may nominate up too two nominees and those nominations must be supported in writing by three other life or regular members. The nomination process starts at the annual convention and continues through out the year up the fourth month preceding the annual convention.

This appears to mean that all nominations must be in by this month. This also means that our self declared candidates, if they haven’t done so, need to get their ducks in a row in a hurry.

3. There will be a write in space provided on the ballot.

This means that if our self declared candidates can’t pass muster on the nomination process then they still have an opportunity to be elected thru write ins.

To give you an example of what happens during the election and how people waste their vote. I witnessed, while helping count ballots, write ins for people that were already on the BOD and were not up for reelection!

And then there is always the wise guy that thinks it’s funny to write in some cartoon character or someone that no one has heard of and may not even be a member. They still get counted but good grief Charley Brown!

[Harry_S.]

Dean...let me guess...

I don't know what it is nor how to use it...but, did you use a Word Proc., Notebook or whatever for your posts?! Either that or you're one terrific whiz at typing.

Your last two posts were submitted in 6 min.;) You know...it would take me the better part of 3 hours to do what you did.:(

I did read every word and even caught the juvenile moment.:rolleyes: A bit of levity intended.


Cheers :)

[PRA]

Hi Dean,

There are currently five new nominees running for the BOD. I learned last week that, when Gary leaves the board this summer, he would still have one more year left on his term. So, whether this is a three or four year class of directors up for election this year, there will be one more seat to fill with Gary leaving early. I'm not sure, at the monent, who the incumbents are that are running for re-election this year.

If anyone is interested in running for the BOD, I have the nominee forms at the P.R.A. Office.

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

[Dean_Dolph]

Dean...let me guess...

I don't know what it is nor how to use it...but, did you use a Word Proc., Notebook or whatever for your posts?! Either that or you're one terrific whiz at typing.

Your last two posts were submitted in 6 min.;) You know...it would take me the better part of 3 hours to do what you did.:( Well, I could say I was a typring whiz but if I did I would be lying. No, you are right, I used Microsoft Word and then extracted the three parts part by part posted them as separate messages.

I did read every word and even caught the juvenile moment.:rolleyes: A bit of levity intended.


Cheers :) Yeah, well, we can't take this all too serious you know!

[PRA]

Hello all,

This is Glenn speaking. I was asked by Pam to respond on behalf of P.R.A. since I am the Secretary of the organization. This is in response to Dean Dolph's posts in regards to the P.R.A. election of board members and nominations.

It is correct that there are three classes of board members each serving three-year terms. Two classes have four seats and the third class has three. Incumbents are automatically eligible to re-run without formality of nomination. The class up for re-election this year has four seats.

There was an announcement at the 2005 Life members meeting naming the incumbents for 2006: Glenn Bundy, Dave Prater, Ron Menzie, and Tim Blackwell (who was filling out the last year of Dan Leslie's term).

The Floor was then opened to nominations for 2006. The nominees were:
Dean Dolph, and Rick Marshall. Rick Marshall declined to run.

Note, that in 2004 a temporary amendment was passed that any PRA member with 5 or more continuous years of membership would be eligible for election to the board. This is still in effect.

It is also correct that nominations come through a Life member. The nomination form must carry four signatures: one from the nominee showing his intent to serve, and three supporting signatures, one of which must be a Life member. It is correct that the nominations close at the end of this month - March 2006.

Lastly, it is correct that there is a space for a write-in vote. This is true to the democratic process and is generally used by those that wish to make a statement of protest. Unfortunately, the only ones that see it are the ones counting the votes.

If anyone has any further questions in regards to the P.R.A. by-laws, feel free to contact me as I was on the committee that amended the by-laws in 2000.

Sincerely,
Glenn N Bundy Jr
P.R.A. Secretary

[Aussie_Paul]

Great Glenn. Thanks for making the effort to come on line. Much appreciated.,

Aussie Paul. :)

[Heron]

Glenn Rocks!
Thanks for opening this venue.
Heron