[rbforster]

I was reading the most recent Bridge Bulletin (May 2008) and saw the notice on page 27 about the "2008 ACBL District Wide Elections for the Board of Directors" and other offices. District Director, alternates, and Board of Governors Representatives are all apparently elected for 3 year terms. If you want to run, you're supposed to get some paperwork in by May 31st or email the appropriate forms to elections@acbl.org.

I have been a ACBL member for at least 5 years now, and I've never been asked to vote in any ACBL election. Stocks I own 10 shares of send me ballots, my undergrad and graduate schools both send me forms for election of officers or alumni positions, even clubs I'm no longer a part of ask me to vote for (or run for) elected office. But the ACBL? Never. Do you have to be already on the board, over 65, know the secret handshake or what? A lot of people around here complain that the current ACBL policies don't represent their views (regarding cell phones, never sanctioning conventions or defenses, etc). Perhaps those who care should put in their hat to be elected and do something about it.

I'd like to learn more about this process from those who've have more experience.


Edit: I was in LA and presently in NYC in case this matters.

[matmat]

i was aware of the elections in question, but, tbh, i was never clear on what the positions entailed. i don't recall there being any sort of job descriptions or anything, i.e. what sort of things these people would be doing, which ones were merely figurehead spots etc.

[TimG]

In New England (District 25), which is made up of eight units, the District Director is elected by the unit boards. So, very few individuals actually get a vote. (In this case, your poll options make little sense -- when I was a member of the unit board, I voted; now that I am not, I do not vote.)

[awm]

My understanding of the procedure is:

(1) The district representatives are not elected by the membership at large. They are elected by the unit boards. In principle anyone can run in such an election, but in practice one essentially has to be a member of a unit board to do so.

(2) The unit board is supposed to be elected by the members of the unit. Some units do this regularly. However, holding an election is expensive and inconvenient, and it is often (but not always) the case that most seats are uncontested. For this reason, many units (including my own unit in West Los Angeles) have decided that they will actively deter people from running for the unit board, instead encouraging them to wait until someone on the current board decides to quit. In such units it is quite possible that no election has been held for decades.

(3) Serving on a unit board is fairly time consuming, especially if one takes the job seriously. There are many things that unit boards do, from organizing sectionals to running educational programs. Anyone serving on a unit board will likely be asked to become involved in these activities, which takes quite a bit of time and energy. Obviously it is possible to serve on a unit board and just "not do anything" and we all know a few people like that, but there is sometimes pressure for such people to step down and anyone who cares about bridge in the unit probably would step down if they don't have time to be an active member of the board.

As I've previously observed, (3) creates a situation where there probably isn't time to work a full-time (non-bridge) job, play a fair amount of competitive duplicate, and also serve on a unit board. So people who serve on these boards are typically retired, even more so than the typical ACBL member. (2) creates a situation where, while anyone with the time and energy can probably get on a unit board (after waiting a couple years for someone else to drop off anyway), it's quite possible that people who don't have time to serve on these boards themselves would never be handed a ballot. And (1) creates a situation where the people who lack the time to serve on a unit board themselves have absolutely no say on league policy issues. The combination is quite effective in disenfranchising the younger crowd (except the bridge professionals of course).

[han]

So basically the ACBL districts and units are only run by people who have time to do so? No wonder it's such a mess!

[ArtK78]

In my unit (Philadelphia 141), the elections are held annually. As the seats on the Unit board have staggered terms, about 1/3 of the board comes up for election every year.

To run, all one has to do is submit a petition with the signatures of some small percentage of the members of the unit (there are over 3000 members of the unit). At one of our sectionals, one is asked (almost forcibly) to submit a ballot on which one votes for up to 5 of the nominees for the 5 positions up for election. There are usually about 7 or 8 nominees. So, while most players who are known and who are interested in serving do get elected to the Unit board, it is not automatic.

As for the District board, I believe that what Tim said is true - the District board is elected by the various Unit boards. I believe also that each Unit board has one vote, but I can't say that I know that from personal knowledge. Further, I believe that the Unit board elect the officers of the Unit, and the District board elects the officers of the District.

[TimG]

ArtK78, on May 4 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

As for the District board, I believe that what Tim said is true - the District board is elected by the various Unit boards.  I believe also that each Unit board has one vote, but I can't say that I know that from personal knowledge.  Further, I believe that the Unit board elect the officers of the Unit, and the District board elects the officers of the District.

I suspect it varies from District to District, but in New England, the Unit Presidents appoint District Executive Committee members (what you would think of as a board). We also have a larger District Board of Delegates (also appointed by Unit Presidents).

The officers of the District are elected by the Board of Delegates.

The District Director is elected by the Unit Board members.

Other notes:

There are some Units with small memberships -- there are a few in New England with fewer than 500 members. There are also some very large Units -- I believe there are Units in Florida that have more members than entire Districts. The 3000+ members in the Philadelphia Unit is probably more than some Districts.

I believe Jason Chiu was a member of his Unit board when he lived in Eastern Massachusetts. He was also on at least one District Committee (I know, I appointed him when I was President of District 25). As I have said before, when I was President, I attempted to fill committees with younger people -- some of them quite reasonably declined because of time concerns -- though this isn't a large pool to draw from.

I am now 40 and have not been involved in bridge organization for about 3 years. I served on a Unit board when I was in college; I was a voting member of another Unit board by virtue of being the editor of the Unit newsletter; I have been a member of the District 25 Executive Committee and Board of Delegates; I've also been the President of District 25. As far as I know, I was the youngest person (by a fair bit) on any of those boards/committees at the time I served.

Edit: lest there be any doubt, I am not a pro player...not that anyone who reads my posts would ever confuse me with a pro...but just to clarify because of the mention about non-pro young players serving.

[awm]

The rule is basically: anyone who is willing to devote several hundred hours a year to their unit is allowed to vote for district representative.

Obviously there is nothing wrong with devoting a few hundred hours to your local unit (or to community service in general). But it's not clear to me that this should be a requirement in order to have any voice at the district and national level, which is the current state of affairs.

As things stand now, many people who do serve on the unit board rarely attend nationals and virtually never play in NABC+ events. Yet they are electing people who are making the rules which govern NABC+ events. Meanwhile, a substantial proportion of the people who do play in NABC+ events (which have a much younger field, on average, than ACBL as a whole) have absolutely no say as to how these events will be run.

This situation seems, at best, a bit odd. And at worst it could be a substantial problem.

[TimG]

awm, on May 4 2008, 09:05 PM, said:

The rule is basically: anyone who is willing to devote several hundred hours a year to their unit is allowed to vote for district representative.

I can't imagine there is a single unit board member in New England who devotes "several hundred hours a year to their unit". There may be a few club owners and/or teachers who spend a few hundred hours in non-playing bridge activities who are also Unit board members. But, these people are getting paid for their services and they are not performing them as a condition of being on a Unit board.

Quote

Meanwhile, a substantial proportion of the people who do play in NABC+ events (which have a much younger field, on average, than ACBL as a whole) have absolutely no say as to how these events will be run.

There is a good case to be made for the players in an event not being responsible for creating the rules under which the event will be run, at least where it comes to security measures.

People have mentioned that similar bans are already in place in Australia, the USBF and the WBF (I think also in Europe, but I can not remember for sure). I imagine that those who proposed and voted on the rule had input for players who play in NABC+ events and who have played in USBF and WBF events where the ban was in place.

[rbforster]

TimG, on May 4 2008, 10:28 PM, said:

There is a good case to be made for the players in an event not being responsible for creating the rules under which the event will be run, at least where it comes to security measures.

On the contrary, unless you think the majority of players are cheaters (who would vote for deliberately lax regulation) I think the players are precisely the ones who the regulations effect and why shouldn't they get to play the game they want? If most people want to pay an extra $5 per round to play with screens, find this out and do it. If the players think electronics are a problem, they'll vote to get rid of them; if not, don't bother. Second guessing the players is just asking for trouble.

At the end of the day, the ACBL should remember that every player who pays his money to play a tournament match is a customer, and the ACBL is in the business of customer service whether they realize it or not.

[mike777]

Lets keep in mind they are not only customers but they are the owners.
If this really is a boondoggle, any many seem to say it is, the policy can be reversed.

I really disagree if you say the people who play in NABC+ have no say. In fact I would guess they have most of the say. Actions speak loudest and they are in a postion to act the loudest!

But since we are really just talking here about the cell phone ban, I would state those playing in NABC+ will have the most to say about this issue and will have the most influence. And that is how it should be.

To be honest as a nonexpert member for close to 40 years I really only have one hot button issue. Let nonexperts be allowed to compete to represent the ACBL, which we do. Feel free to give byes and high seeds to the expert players.

Sidenote, I guess as I get older I hope the ACBL can figure out how to hold higher level tourneys online.

[rbforster]

mike777, on May 5 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

But since we are really just talking here about the cell phone ban

No, I'm interested in the whole concept of membership representation, such as it applies to the ACBL. People have lots of gripes now and then, many of which come up repeatedly, and I want to understand why and how they might be addressed within the current governance framework. Given the current poll is 9-1 in favor of people having never been presented with the opportunity to vote for representatives, I'd say the ACBL isn't doing so well on that front.

[mike777]

Rob F, on May 5 2008, 12:56 AM, said:

mike777, on May 5 2008, 12:29 AM, said:

But since we are really just talking here about the cell phone ban

No, I'm interested in the whole concept of membership representation, such as it applies to the ACBL. People have lots of gripes now and then, many of which come up repeatedly, and I want to understand why and how they might be addressed within the current governance framework. Given the current poll is 9-1 in favor of people having never been presented with the opportunity to vote for representatives, I'd say the ACBL isn't doing so well on that front.

Trust me in 40 years you got plenty of chances to vote if you care.

Keep in mind the vast majority of ACBL members who pay the bills are non lm or lm by virtue of time.

Keep in mind 99% of us wish we could play with a MikeH or Justin or some of the online posters here. We only hope we make enough money to enjoy a game or two with them in the future.

[matmat]

mike777, on May 5 2008, 02:19 AM, said:

Keep in mind 99% of us wish we could play with a MikeH or Justin or some of the online posters here. We only hope we make enough money to enjoy a game or two with them in the future.

last i checked 5 was an odd number.

[Vilgan]

Jlall, on May 4 2008, 06:26 PM, said:

BTW wasn't Jason Chiu, a non pro young player, on a unit board? Since this group is so small that is probably a larger %age of non pro young people representation than would be expected given the demographics.

I'm on my unit board, at age 26. There's also a friendly mother of 2(?) who is like 34 who is on the board. Our unit board is uncommonly young/friendly/motivated I think, but a major part of that is because the last board was SO horrendous that they were all ousted and a bazillion people ran because they were so upset with the previous board.

One problem in our district at least, is that the district director is 100% entrenched and pretty much impossible to out. Not going to write a long diatribe about her, but she is hardly ideal. However, she has also spent decades building up rapport with all the old ladies in other unit boards and is not going to leave until she decides to. Heck, even then it won't really be an election as she has determined her successor and started grooming them politically so that they will be voted in when she steps down.

I strongly doubt we are alone. However, it is a bit frustrating when the position will not be determined by merit for the foreseeable future (decades).

[tbr]

This may or may not make a difference but in the American Bridge Association, which is smaller and more laid back, we do get to vote by the membership as a whole every 2 years for President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer.

[pclayton]

tbr, on May 5 2008, 08:26 AM, said:

This may or may not make a difference but in the American Bridge Association, which is smaller and more laid back, we do get to vote by the membership as a whole every 2 years for President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer.

ABA ♥