Join Bridge Winners
San Francisco BoD meeting

I know at least some BoD members will see this.

A short while back, as 1st A for District 24, I sat in for Al Levy. Each of the twenty four other members came up through the Unit ranks. I was the only, even close to, full time club owner. One or two members had done some part time teaching. In retrospect, I found the experience similar to that of a very well run Unit or District Board meeting.  Everyone was sincere, well meaning, well intentioned, and charming. This was to be expected. After all, those are the attributes that got them elected. That, and the fact that they are often the ones doing some of the heaviest lifting back home.

Unit Boards exist to run Sectionals and advise their District on Regionals. Everything else is secondary. That's what you get when you put one dozen, or two dozen Unit Board representatives together on a national board. Well run tournaments, everything else is secondary.

We all know the definition of insanity. Why is this central, core issue and problem, not the one being addressed? I did not notice any unwieldy problems stemming from having 25 BoD members. On the contrary. It ran smoothly and covered every area expected. It just didn't address most of the pressing issues confronting us.  It did much work on governance, and on Masterpoint and tournament tweaking. Almost zero on club and member growth.

Check the 60 or so motions before this SF Board. See a pattern?

It's really not a question of size. If it's about cost savings, cut out one of the three meetings. If it's about relevance, then please SF BoD members, spend some time on figuring out how to get diversity into the equation. Understand, Unit Boards do not elect US (club owners) to represent THEM. Twenty-five non-club-owning Board members testify to that. 

BTW: Clubs are taxed, but not represented. Is there a lesson there?

Getting Comments... loading...

Bottom Home Top