Author Topic: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO (Read 10565 times)

MI 2 AZ · « **on:** April 29, 2003, 06:34:00 AM »

The WIBC membership rejected the USBC merger plan. Here is a link:

http://www.bowl.com/bowl/wibc/common/news/record.html?record=6803

Jerry Weller · « **Reply #1 on:** April 30, 2003, 02:50:48 AM »

Way to go ladies. Single Membership is a great idea, but let's find a way to fix the problems and do it right so that the majority of ALL bowlers back the idea.

The naked power grab the WIBC leadership was backing would have created a real nightmare situation between the ABC and the new single membership organization. I wouldn't have known who to keep my membership with.

michelle · « **Reply #2 on:** April 30, 2003, 07:49:28 AM »

If the article was to be believed, the SMO may not be dead. It sounds like the WIBC is going to have a motion brought forth to reconsider the vote. When you get that much going on in the way of parliamentary procedure, there is no telling what might happen.

jkirkman · « **Reply #3 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:37:38 AM »

My understanding of the reason the SMO has been rejected is a few very large local associations with a majority of the voters don't want to lose their power and convinced their members to vote no. If a local association secretary is going to possibly lose his/her $60,000+/year salary what do you think that person is going to lobby their association's delegates to vote?

Steven · « **Reply #4 on:** April 30, 2003, 11:56:53 AM »

Fonedude: First, I want to thank you for all the hard work you contribute as an ABC representative. Folks who contribute significant amounts of time and energy to volunteer organizations are a rare breed, and rarely get the recognition they deserve. While I'm not an ABC rep, I've given thousands of hours of volunteer time to various youth organizations over the past several years, so I have some idea of where you're coming from. And ultimately, I think you'd agree that we do it for love of service rather than expecting pats on the back.

Having said all this, I have to agree with Galaxy. While there are some hard working volunteers such as yourself, too many delegates are in it for personal prestige and not necessarily for the good of the common bowler. You may not want to believe this or acknowledge this, but it's an ugly truth.

I think it's great that you've spent so much personal time giving out awards and attending conventions, but ultimately that's not what the ABC should be about. The organization should first and foremost be about injecting scoring integrity and dignity into the sport. Unfortunately, the ABC threw in the towel on this issue years ago, so your mission has largely been reduced to pedaling trinkets for over inflated accomplishments. It's not a pretty situation.

I admit that I don't know what my reps do, but since the organization accomplishes little of real value, it doesn't matter. Maybe your time would be better spent with your wife and 3 kids -- they'll actually give you something back!

jimsey · « **Reply #5 on:** April 30, 2003, 02:41:44 PM »

just to confirm michelle's post, yes, the usbc issue was bought back to the floor for a second vote today and was rejected a second time. Although the percentage was closer, those voting in favor did not gain in number, there were merely fewer nay votes (as well as total delegates in attendence). I was surprised that in both cases there were more delegates supporting the merger than there were delegates opposing the issue.

This is certainly a difficult situation with no real right or wrong answer. The question boils down to will bowlers be better served by a single organization or by fragmented sectors that represent a specific portion of the bowlers? Can a twenty five member board who have a single focus on the sport make more intelligent decisions than a few thousand delegates who meet once a year and have a limited amount of industry information available to them? Is there sufficient structure in place that will allow a smaller board to better represent its members or does the larger delegate base have a better feel for the pulse of the bowlers? There is no doubt that the local volunteers perform a unique and valuable service but does that mean that they know what is best for a large segment of the industry?

Whatever the next move is, it should be interesting.

bowlin gr8 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 30, 2003, 03:00:21 PM »

Fonedude,

Are you sure that the membership could vote out a board member? I thought that a replacement would be determined by the board itself and the membership would not have a say in it.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

bowlin gr8 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 30, 2003, 03:17:04 PM »

Just went to www.bowl.com and am trying to find the info. From what I have read so far, the 25 member nationa board will have a Nominating Committee that would submit names to the annual convention for them to vote on which one(s) to fill the empty positions on the board. So the general membership can only choose which of the candidates that the board has already selected. This does not sound like much of a check and balance system. It would be like having the Senate or Congress submitting the candidates for the voters to choose from.

Still have not found anything on how to have a board member removed.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

Jerry Weller · « **Reply #8 on:** April 30, 2003, 06:07:24 PM »

Disclaimer: I'm not an ABC rep, never been an ABC rep, have no desire to be an ABC rep -- too much work for too little gratitude. My hat's definitely off to people like Fonedude. Thank you for the time and energy you contribute to the game we all love. I had no power to gain or lose by the board's vote.

Having said that, here's why I don't like the current proposal:

Let's say that the national board got together and decided that giving out honor scores was too darn expensive and that the profitability of the national organization needed to be enhanced.

Let us further decide that in order to restore this profitability, the most extreme possible measures needed to be taken and as a result - all sanctioned bowling should henceforth be done on a reverse block. (This is a purely theoretical proposition made purely to illustrate a point)

Let us further say for the sake of argument that the national board after careful research decided that Single Membership Organization profits could be maximized by raising the dues to $100 a year even though it would mean a loss of membership.

Under the single membership proposal as drafted, our representatives would still legislate the rules of the game itself... HOWEVER...the way that the proposal was drafted, the National Board retains the right to make all Constitutional amendments.

What does that mean?

It means that the National Board could strip the delegates of all power to regulate the game AT ANY TIME without any vote of the membership.

And what does it mean if that were to happen? The bowler in the settee would have zero voting power or influence. The National Board COULD indeed force all sanctioned bowling to take place on a reverse block.

Furthermore, the bowler in the settee has NO VOICE whatsoever in the dues setting process except to quit.

Now obviously these are extreme examples and we will in all probability never need to worry about such extreme things taking place - but the mere fact that they COULD take place and I would have ZERO recourse as a member is enough to make me say No.

Is it so much to ask, that the Board close the loopholes and resubmit the proposition? Why would this be, if there is no intent to ever exploit any of the loopholes?

MI 2 AZ · « **Reply #9 on:** April 30, 2003, 06:24:00 PM »

I am also not an ABC rep in any way except as a bowler.

I am concerned if by only having 25 members on the National Board to make decisions, if that wouldnt (theoretically) make it easier for a dishonest company to bribe or otherwise influence enough of the National Board to pass new rules or amendments so that their new equipment could come onto the market that wouldnt otherwise have made it past the current ball specs? As it stands now, it would have to be voted on by the reps (how many 1000s) to amend and it would be difficult to influence enough to pass anything like that through but with only 25 we might end up seeing balls with gyros built in or some such

This is only idle speculation on my part so please dont take it too seriously.

And isnt the CEO of the USBC supposed to be in for life? Did anyone find out if there is a way to remove a board member?

charlest · « **Reply #10 on:** April 30, 2003, 08:51:52 PM »

quote:

Sawbones sez:
If we live in a democracy and believe in democracy, why is it so difficult for the powers that be in each of the organizations not understand the main reason this proposal is not moving forward is that every member of each organization wants a vote and a say so as to how things are done?

Is this because a democrocy is NOT we vote for a representative to vote what we want,
BUT
a democracy is we vote for a representative to vote the way his/her conscience direct them to vote,
AND
we, the public, can't stand that thought???

quote:

Its (take the time to write correct grammar, DOc!, please.) It's not that difficult to bring anything to a vote since less than half of those who have the opportunity to vote, don't do so anyway.

The main reason for the rejections is taking the vote away from the membership at large and placing it in the hands of a few. While the few may be smarter than the rest of us and a majority is not always the best way to go, but it is our system and why should a SMO operate any differently? Bones

Isn't that called a plutocracy and not a democracy, Bones?
OR
as we Romans say,
Ain't that a kick in the you-know-where?
Because this, the SMO, is not and should not reflect our governmantal processes.

Wow! crazy thoughts for Midnight, no???

Jerry Weller · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2003, 02:09:28 AM »

I wasn't there. I don't know what was said by the delegates. Frankly I care more about how I feel about the issue than what they said or didn't say.

I feel my concerns are legitimate. I don't feel they've been addressed in any substantive way - all we've heard thus far is a bunch of name calling and accusations by the losing side without dealing with any of the legitimate and substantive objections that bowlers at large might have.

You say all it's about Kingdom building? Clinging desperately to power? Not wanting to work with the opposite sex?

I say lose the personal attacks, deal with the legitimate problems people have with the SMO and bring it up again after the loopholes are closed. I'll back the single membership organization and take the time and trouble to ask my delegate to vote for it after that gets done.

If the proponents of the SMO can't deal with the substance, the rest is nothing but sour grapes.

Edited on 5/1/2003 2:17 AM

bowlin gr8 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:35:10 AM »

Galaxy,

I do not golf. Never played or been on a course in my life. Until you spelled out what the initials USGA stood for, I didnt know. Could you tell me about the USGA - what does it do, how is it set up, is it like the ABC or the BPAA? What is the main difference between the USGA and the USBC proposal? Thanks.
--------------------
Who says bowling isn't a blood sport?

Tex · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2003, 07:37:09 AM »

How many members does USGA have and what is the number of participants in Golf. A recent study has once again moved bowling into the number 1 spot of participation in America. Also, did golf have two that combined in the last few years? Do they give awards to local golfers? Not being a golfer(can't figure out how to put finger holes in those little balls) I have never heard anybody say "I am a USGA member" and I have lots of friends that play the game.

Jerry, you hit the nail on the head when you said they could take away the vote on the rules of the game once in power. That was always my biggest fear. Even though I always stirred the pot for USBC. We need one organization. BUT, with all rules and voting power left "as is". Do that and the vote will pass. Once passed, then they can bring rules changes to improve the game to the single convention.

Like Fondude, I am on the local board. In fact we serve on the same board and often have different opinions, but we work together to promote the same sport. The key is we work together and without much help from the local women's board, we try to help our local bowlers in everyway we can. Dallas actually has new centers opening up almost every year. Thanks to "AMF" we have lost some, but we are also replacing those with new and better centers. Our board makes mistakes, but voting NO on this issue was not one of them. In the long run, I think the issue will come back and this time the way "WE" want it. Then it will pass and we can all move forward.

jimsey · « **Reply #14 on:** May 01, 2003, 09:36:40 AM »

Bones and Fondude

I know from speaking to several people who were on the USBC merger committee that USGA and several other membership/volunteer organizations were looked at as part of the formation of the merger proposal. I do have limited knowledge of USGA and feel that there are some significant differences. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. USGA membership fees are $15 per year(or higher depending on the level/gifts selected) compared to a max of $16 for ABC (max of $20 in 2004 if USBC passed)

2. USGA total membership is significantly less than ABC and certainly the total number of members if USBC merger passed.

3. USGA has no national or local awards programs (no hole in one ring, 10 strokes under parr award, or low average.

4. USGA does not have a convention nor process for its members to vote on anything (dues, rules, or bylaws)

5. USGA does not have a bonding program to protect members prize funds for leagues or tournaments.

6. USGA does not have an inspection program to make sure that putting surfaces are in good condition, holes are cut in an appropriate location, or hole lengths are accurate as listed on the score card.

Yes, there are alot of things that USGA does well to promote the sport. The structure of the organization is more flexible by allowing the board to institute and promote programs to enhance the sport without going to a yearly national convention for approval prior to making a commitment.

As in many situations, there is not a one size fits all solution. Hopefully, we will keep working at it and continue to improve and learn through the effort.

Edited on 5/1/2003 11:04 AM

Author Topic: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO (Read 10565 times)

MI 2 AZ

WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

Jerry Weller

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

michelle

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

jkirkman

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

Steven

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

jimsey

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

bowlin gr8

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

bowlin gr8

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

Jerry Weller

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

MI 2 AZ

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

charlest

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

Jerry Weller

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

bowlin gr8

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

Tex

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO

jimsey

Re: WIBC Rejects USBC - SBO