Don’t give away your rights by not voting. Please vote against this poorly thought out proposal.
Let’s look at the math and how this proposition would change your voting power if approved:
Right now members have the opportunity to vote for over half of the Board members. Since AANR has 7 regions, and members choose 1 Member Trustee from their own region, this results in 7 Member Trustees. The remaining 7 trustees represent the different types and sizes of all AANR clubs (i.e., landed/non-landed and very large to very small). The total number of all club members is then divided into 7 levels and members vote for all seven Club trustee positions. That means you vote for a total of 8 of the 14 Trustees, or 57% of the total Trustees.
Proposition 2 will reduce your influence to no more than 14%. Why? Because Proposition 2 eliminates the club trustees which ALL the members vote for. Proposition 2 will have you voting for just one regional trustee despite the fact that the regions are vastly different in size, climate and issues. Proposition 2 will make it easier to control the outcome of votes when you have fewer people to convince your plan is effective. Finally, Proposition 2 is not based upon a shared, well thought out plan, with member or board input. It is simply based on the supposition that cutting out 7 Club trustees and their associated travel costs is a nice idea!
The last time we changed the make-up of the Board there were workshops in each region and articles in the Bulletin explaining the change. It took two tries to get it right but the members were informed. That was not the case this time. The clubs should have been surveyed to see how they feel about the club trustee change. The results of such a survey should then be used to come up with a plan and that information must be shared ahead of time with the members before they are asked to vote on such a radical change to their voting rights.
The idea that AANR needs to drop half the Board now to save money is a smoke screen. AANR’s fiscal situation is sound and the consequences of reducing the board were not even considered when the proposal was written. It was never brought to the board for consideration. The only Board influence was being able to vote to put both propositions together on the ballot or none. The Board had no say in the viability of the proposal.
Proposition 2 should be defeated and any new proposal should be presented for consideration in 2020.