Democracy and MYC

I found much of the following text on Wikipedia on the Internet, and it helped me home in on some fundamental truths about democracy and a republic or representative democracy, the American ideal …

• Any definition of democracy includes all citizens having equal access to power
• The right of the people to choose their government is inherent to the idea of the republic
• A defining characteristic of any democracy is the suffrage it extends to the people. Suffrage is used to describe not only the legal right to vote, but also to the practical question of the realistic opportunity to vote.

Okay. Good stuff. I’d guess that most MYC members not only want the United States government, but also the government of their club to reflect these principles. It appears that the framers of the MYC by-laws had them in mind. MYC is a sailing club, not a nation, so it should no doubt work differently than the US government, but democratic decision making should underpin both organizations.

 As time has gone by, circumstances have changed, and MYC no longer seems to operate in accordance with some established procedures or in the spirit of certain club policies … maybe because it has become harder to do so. As you probably know, a committee is currently reviewing and re-evaluating the by-laws. Perhaps club policies, rules, and procedures as well as by-laws could use some revision to continue to effectively support our democratic ideals.

 I’d like to comment on some democratic operations of the club.

Areas Where We Have Evolved Away From Democracy

1. We currently have over 120 voting members and we almost never get 2/5 of that number at meetings to establish a quorum for conducting business. Instead, we routinely get an average of 10-15 members (less than 10% of the membership) besides the Board attending the meetings. The club has chosen to overlook the absence of a quorum and accept votes on important issues by a very small minority of the stakeholders.

2. Sometimes proposals are made during a meeting that were not previewed in the meeting notification or only announced at the last minute, but they are nevertheless decided at the meeting without affording non-attendees adequate opportunity to vote.

3. It appears to me that sometimes the Board wants to act on an issue, but it is reluctant to wait for the next meeting or to call for a special meeting, so they make rule or procedure changes without getting a desirable membership vote.

4. Some Board officers are nominated year after year for the same post, and some further take on multiple non-elected roles.

Each of the above occurrences has resulted in a diminishment of democracy at MYC. Decisions are made by a few people, not the majority of the members. The questions are:

• Do we want to have democratic administration and, if so…
• What can we about the above procedures that have strayed from that approach?

Based on the recent survey, there are some MYC members who are content with the process as it is, and some even seem to prefer having all club decisions made by the small minority of members who serve on the Board and make it to the meetings on a regular basis. They believe:

• “Although fewer votes are cast by the current system than might be ... the quality of each vote is far greater.” They believe that participating in the discussion that occurs among the members at a meeting is critical to being properly aware of the issues and varying opinions while online discussion, open to all members, is a lesser form of discussion and merely a nice-to-have.
• Some believe that other members or they themselves are either apathetic or content with the status quo, and they believe anyone who wants to participate in decision making has the opportunity to attend meetings and do so. “If they care enough they will find a way to attend.”
• A couple people expressed the opinion that the club is best run by pursuing a consensus (rather than depending on majority rule) and that consensus can best be achieved by a small group at a meeting working face-to-face together.
• Some oppose expanding membership participation in decision making because they want to avoid excessive debate, over-complicating club business, and having to take on the burden of managing a vote that is not as easily conducted as a show of hands at a meeting. Some believe that one voting requirement is that the voting process should involve no more time than it takes to count the raised hands.
• Another group seems open or interested in expanding decision making participation beyond meeting attendees but is unsure how that can be done and done well.

What do YOU think?

Here’s what I think…

I believe there are people who cannot attend meetings and others who choose other priorities over attending MYC meetings, but that they all nevertheless deserve the right to vote. Sometimes a member is out of town, sometimes a member is sick, sometimes a member has a loved one who needs him or her, sometimes spending time with one’s family takes precedence over attending a meeting, sometimes one lacks transportation or it is dangerous to travel, some members have to work or honor other commitments when a meeting is held. Sometimes, a member would just prefer to watch TV than to attend a multi-hour meeting on yacht club matters. Should all these people be denied a vote on issues in which they may have a stake regarding the recreational club to which they pay dues? I don’t think so.

I believe that although one person may contribute less to the club than another person, all voting members in good standing should be able to participate in club decision making. I know that there are many ways to contribute to the club outside of attending meetings, I know that member contributions (and meeting attendance) may fluctuate over the years as personal commitments, priorities, and demands change, I know that meeting attendance does not ensure a member’s good judgment, and I know that many non-attendees are quite well versed on club matters and member opinions. I believe that each member’s vote should be considered equal and that it should not be granted or denied depending on his or her perceived efforts on behalf of the club at the time of a vote.

While appreciating a consensus which also seeks the resolution or mitigation of minority objections, I don’t believe it is a realistic objective in current MYC decision making, even at the sparsely attended business meetings. With the emergence of a large board boat fleet, a growing percentage of non-racing members, and other changes to the membership over time, the club seems less homogenous than it used to be, making consensus harder to achieve. In fact, the discussions at meetings I’ve attended have been very contentious and didn’t even approach a consensus. Furthermore, if I had to choose between a consensus of the meeting attendees or majority rule of the entire club, I’d choose the latter.

So how do we expand the democratic process without introducing too much work, time, or complexity? How do we enable the Board to seek voter approval when a regular meeting is not imminent or one was just recently held but membership input on a new issue is desired? We support membership voting outside meetings. The best way to do this is being explored by a new committee and alternative approaches (e.g. hardcopy balloting and online voting) will be reported back for full membership review and discussion. However, in the last few years, applications supporting online voting have been invented, and we only need look to the recent MYC surveys to envision how online balloting might be supported using these mechanisms.

The survey taken in May to gather membership input on a variety of matters surrounding club participation was far more complicated than a typical vote on a proposal might be. Without any cost to the club, we were able to efficiently obtain, validate, tally, and store member opinions on 26 questions online. The application we used also supports the distribution of reports and the centralized access to the results in summary or in detail, according to our specifications. Although the survey involved no binding decisions and the procedure was unfamiliar, about half of the club’s voting members participated.

There are more procedural decisions to be made on voting outside meetings than just how online votes might be performed, but I think these can be worked out to the satisfaction of the club. The first order of business would seem to be to identify voting requirements. If for any reason, online and hardcopy voting could not be managed to meet club voting requirements, no one, including me, would or should support them.

NOTE: The business of electing Board members could use a shot in the arm, but how do we improve the Board election process? I have some ideas, but I’ll leave that topic for another day.

Comments anyone?