HOW LONG?

[everetkhorton]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

[goshawks00]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

[FredFogg]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

I agree, this not only applies to NAFA but to our government. But as far as NAFA goes, term limits are definately needed. Maybe 5 years as a NAFA director, have to be out for 2 years and then you can run again. And I too agree, the president and vice president should be voted on by the members. Time for some by-laws to be changed to make this happen.

[Tony James]

I agree, this not only applies to NAFA but to our government. But as far as NAFA goes, term limits are definately needed. Maybe 5 years as a NAFA director, have to be out for 2 years and then you can run again. And I too agree, the president and vice president should be voted on by the members. Time for some by-laws to be changed to make this happen.

Hi Fred,

for what it's worth, my advice when changing those rules would be to insert the word 'normally', as in, 'a director would normally be expected to serve no longer than.........', or else it's very easy to disqualify talent when you desperately need it.

Best wishes,

Tony.

[outhawkn]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

Exactly.......

[joekoz]

Good morning Ev!!

I do believe in term limits FOR ALL POSITIONS...
Maybe something like 4 years on then have to wait 1 year before they can hold another ( position or office.)
AND for GOD"S sake the president of the whole organization should be elected by the members of the organization.
Barry

DITTO!

[goshawks00]

Ev, maybe I should also add that if elected to a position it's for 2 years, with 4 years max that being if they are re elected to a second term

[Ron Clarke]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

If someone wants to work to change the NAFA By-Laws, by all means, go for it, but there ought to be a justification for the plan. Why would we implement an arbitary term limit without a clearly stated justification? In a small organization such as ours, the talent pool is already limited. Why narrow it further without a good reason?

If someone has the time, talent, and inclination to serve NAFA, I have no problem with that person doing so as long as he/she wants to. As long as there's an election for directors every two years, we already have a form of term limit. Case in point: we've seen an almost wholesale replacement of directors and officers in the past few years. What's the systemic problem to be solved by instituting term limits?

As long as we see directorships go uncontested in every election, I don't see the need to artificially limit someone's service to NAFA. To the contrary, the experience and institutional memories of people that have been around a while can be invaluable.

[Dirthawking]

Ron, very well said, and I have to totally agree with you. If somebody was not doing a good job, they would not get re-elected. Sometimes, the old blood is the good blood.

[jfseaman]

We keep hearing that NAFA need new blood. Lets say there is a good Director, doing a good job. How long should he/she be in office before he/she should be replaced. Suggest the number of years. You do not have to justify your answer. Just so many years. Lets not get into any discussion well if he/she is doing a great job. Look at the number of years that have been in office.

Learn, contribute, move on.

As for loosing experience or institutional memory, ex-directors/officers are out of office, not dead, unless term limits has a clause I don't know about.

Past directors/officers can still assist or advise new ones

[RyanVZ]

There was a vote a few years ago to change the bylaws to vote for president of nafa. It failed by less than ten votes and had a VERY poor turnout of members voting if I remember correctly.

[Tony James]

Learn, contribute, move on.

As for loosing experience or institutional memory, ex-directors/officers are out of office, not dead, unless term limits has a clause I don't know about.

Past directors/officers can still assist or advise new ones

Hi Fred,

it's wise to foster a spirit that values institutional memory and makes proper use of those 'in the know' while still in office, as they'll have plenty of valuable information to pass on.
If any new boy want to charge in with a stiff broom, without first learning the background to how things got to where they are, any sweeping is likely to be counter-productive --- and if past directors have 'learned, contributed, and moved on', there'll be nobody around to teach the new blood and the organisation will suffer for it.

Regards,

Tony.

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

it's wise to foster a spirit that values institutional memory and makes proper use of those 'in the know' while still in office, as they'll have plenty of valuable information to pass on.
If any new boy want to charge in with a stiff broom, without first learning the background to how things got to where they are, any sweeping is likely to be counter-productive --- and if past directors have 'learned, contributed, and moved on', there'll be nobody around to teach the new blood and the organisation will suffer for it.

Regards,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

Sorry, I'm not buyin it. If it were true the result of the USA presidency 2 term limit would be a collapse of the government. Same for every local, regional (county) and state position.

For non-term limited government positions what we and the UK have is endless job protection. Power, whether real or perceived by the office holder corrupts.

Very similar to what goes on with the NAFA and HB boards, almost any organization for that matter. Remember, I've been to HB meetings, know Jim Chick, Nick Fox, Nick Haverman-Mart. I know what happened to Geoff Dalton.


What is important is the office not the office holder. The office holder has the mandate to do the best justice to the office she/he can. Same as we with our hawks, to do the best justice we can.

If we elect a president and vice president, then candidates for those positions can in their campaign, show how they benefited the organization with contributions of effort and management skills instead of getting the position by behind the scenes old school, old boy networking.

I agree with your 'usual' clause though. If a president/director/officer says "but I'm not done yet" on some project to improve the organization then fine, extend their term so they can get the job done.

As for new boy, charging in with a stiff broom to change the world to her/his view in one go, can't happen. The government of the organization has some semblance of a representative democracy.

If past office holders stop contributing because they are out of office then they are probably of a character that we don't what in office in the first place. To put that in terms of myself, wheter I am a director or not, I will continue to look for and do anything I can with in my scheduling and personal capabilities to assist in furthering falconry and the mission of NAFA, pre or post office holder time frame.

[Ron Clarke]

Fred, I suspect most of us stateside are unfamiliar with the UK Hawk Board, much less who Geoff Dalton is or what happened to him. Do tell!

[Tony James]

Hi Tony,

Sorry, I'm not buyin it. If it were true the result of the USA presidency 2 term limit would be a collapse of the government. Same for every local, regional (county) and state position.

For non-term limited government positions what we and the UK have is endless job protection. Power, whether real or perceived by the office holder corrupts.

Very similar to what goes on with the NAFA and HB boards, almost any organization for that matter. Remember, I've been to HB meetings, know Jim Chick, Nick Fox, Nick Haverman-Mart. I know what happened to Geoff Dalton.


What is important is the office not the office holder. The office holder has the mandate to do the best justice to the office she/he can. Same as we with our hawks, to do the best justice we can.

If we elect a president and vice president, then candidates for those positions can in their campaign, show how they benefited the organization with contributions of effort and management skills instead of getting the position by behind the scenes old school, old boy networking.

I agree with your 'usual' clause though. If a president/director/officer says "but I'm not done yet" on some project to improve the organization then fine, extend their term so they can get the job done.

As for new boy, charging in with a stiff broom to change the world to her/his view in one go, can't happen. The government of the organization has some semblance of a representative democracy.

If past office holders stop contributing because they are out of office then they are probably of a character that we don't what in office in the first place. To put that in terms of myself, wheter I am a director or not, I will continue to look for and do anything I can with in my scheduling and personal capabilities to assist in furthering falconry and the mission of NAFA, pre or post office holder time frame.

Hi Fred,

I was commenting on your words, "learn, contribute, move on", rather than suggesting any responsible person would act according to them.

Your response would concern me if I were a NAFA member deciding what to do with my vote, but as I'm not, what it reveals is of acedemic interest only.

Can I ask, do you currently serve on any NAFA committees, assisting in the furtherance of falconry or the mission of NAFA?
I suspect a history of such involvement would offer added credibility to your bid, and demonstrate an insiders grasp of current activity and the teamwork required to do the position justice.

Regards,

Tony.

[Hunter45]

The discussion on this thread has done an admirable job of describing the pros and cons of "term limits". They mirror a lot of what has been discussed in national and state politics. May I suggest another way of looking at this topic?

It has been my impression that new people don't run, or succeed in running, because of the inherent advantage any "incumbent" has. Let's level the playing field a bit AND make the process more informative.

1. ALL candidates may have their campaign materials emailed to the appropriate part of the membership (region's members or all for at large) on an ongoing basis during the campaign time frame.

2. How about a "debate" where questions are submitted in advance by the members and answers posted on a forum and have the ability to ask and have posted follow up questions to said answers?

I think Board members and Officers who are doing a good job (in members' eyes) should not be arbitrarily "term limited", but if they have become unresponsive or "imperious", the campaign process should allow a challenger a clear path to show why he/she would be the better choice.

Direct election of the NAFA president is certainly worth bringing up again for discussion and a vote.

And, perhaps most importantly, it would be appropriate if turnout in a NAFA election would total at least 75% of the eligible voters. Their own apathy is the biggest enemy any constituency faces.

[frootdog]

1. ALL candidates may have their campaign materials emailed to the appropriate part of the membership (region's members or all for at large) on an ongoing basis during the campaign time frame.

Amen. I know in the past that candidates have asked and been denied the lists that the directors have available to them giving the clear advantage to the incumbent. Maybe/hopefully that has changed with the big turnover they have had recently.

[Ron Clarke]

In the wonderful world of two-edged swords, distribution of mailing lists is one of the stickiest. Any organization is smart to guard its lists carefully, while at the same time, I can see the fairness in allowing challengers and incumbents alike access to the e-mail roster prior to an election. Just the same, I don't recall ever receiving an e-mail election appeal from a NAFA incumbent. Is that a problem? How often has that happened?

[Hunter45]

It's the challenger who needs more than his/her "biography" to campaign with. I put together, by hand from old printed member directories, my list I used to send out subsequent clarifications and/or address issues that people wanted more specifics on where I stood. I doubt I'd have won w/o putting these out.

As for the privacy of the membership list, it being available in print doesn't exactly make it "private" and you'll note that I requested the candidates have "access" to having their campaign materials sent out. The Corresponding Sec'y could handle this w/o ever divulging or distributing the actual list.

AND for those 100 or so members w/o email, a system should be in place where a candidate could provide copies and postage for the CS to send his/her materials to those people. These type of "reforms" would enhance the quality of the campaigns and give the members more information to make their voting decisions.

[Hunter45]

would be the availability of member phone numbers. Here's where the Member Directory could/should be used by those candidates who wish to "reach out and touch someone" during their campaign. I know that Ron and I both did a fair amount of that during the initial and run-off votes.

When it was all over, I think we both felt like a couple of old wild west gun slingers standing in the middle of the street with empty six shooters and a lot gunsmoke in the air. Whoever was left standing we both knew we'd given it our all. And I have to tell you, that wasn't a bad feeling!

[jfseaman]

Hi Fred,

I was commenting on your words, "learn, contribute, move on", rather than suggesting any responsible person would act according to them.

Your response would concern me if I were a NAFA member deciding what to do with my vote, but as I'm not, what it reveals is of acedemic interest only.

Can I ask, do you currently serve on any NAFA committees, assisting in the furtherance of falconry or the mission of NAFA?
I suspect a history of such involvement would offer added credibility to your bid, and demonstrate an insiders grasp of current activity and the teamwork required to do the position justice.

Regards,

Tony.

Hi Tony,

I started by asking Rich every year if he needed any help with the weathering. It took a couple years but this year I helped tear down. Haven't been able to penetrate any other groups. DAL nomination was the first I was asked to do more than what I've been trying to do.

Though I have offered to help FredFogg with web stuff but he figured it out.

[jfseaman]

Fred, I suspect most of us stateside are unfamiliar with the UK Hawk Board, much less who Geoff Dalton is or what happened to him. Do tell!

The Hawk Board is the UK equivalent of NAFA. Different incorporation structure but same basic goals, preserve falconry.

When the UK banned fox hunting the traditional way, a loop hole was found by the fox hunts. The loop hole allowed the hunt to continue if the dogs were used to flush for a bird of prey. Golden Eagles and European Eagle Owls were snapped up by fox hunt clubs and horrendous prices. Other members of the hunting (all hunting) community ignored or mildly complained this exploitation of the laws allowed for falconry. Geoff Dalton pointed out that neither the loop hole or the laws allowing dogs to be used to pursue and flush for trained raptors mattered. What mattered was the welfare of these Eagles and Owls at the hands of inept fox hunt clubs. Geoff's concern for the welfare of the raptors was inferred as support for the fox hunts activities (which it was not) and he was ostracized by the old boys club.

[everetkhorton]

Amen. I know in the past that candidates have asked and been denied the lists that the directors have available to them giving the clear advantage to the incumbent. Maybe/hopefully that has changed with the big turnover they have had recently.

Krys:
All members get a membership directory. But if they are new members they may not have one by the time the vote is taken. I can tell you, that about 30% of the email address are outdated. Not all members have there email address in the directory, by there choice.

[everetkhorton]

It's the challenger who needs more than his/her "biography" to campaign with. I put together, by hand from old printed member directories, my list I used to send out subsequent clarifications and/or address issues that people wanted more specifics on where I stood. I doubt I'd have won w/o putting these out.

As for the privacy of the membership list, it being available in print doesn't exactly make it "private" and you'll note that I requested the candidates have "access" to having their campaign materials sent out. The Corresponding Sec'y could handle this w/o ever divulging or distributing the actual list.

AND for those 100 or so members w/o email, a system should be in place where a candidate could provide copies and postage for the CS to send his/her materials to those people. These type of "reforms" would enhance the quality of the campaigns and give the members more information to make their voting decisions.

Greg:
You said it all in the first line of this post. "I" put together etc. NAFA puts out a bio and sends the bio to the membership. The rest should be up to the person running for the office.

[frootdog]

Krys:
All members get a membership directory. But if they are new members they may not have one by the time the vote is taken. I can tell you, that about 30% of the email address are outdated. Not all members have there email address in the directory, by there choice.

Yes I'm fully aware of this Ev, but you seem to want the status quo and that don't work for me. It simply is not fair for the current director to have access to his membership list and not extend the same courtesy to the challengers. It screams NAFA wanting to keep the good ole boy in place. Like Greg said the challenger does NOT have to have direct access to the list, but the cs could send it out. It is absolutely rediculous that a candidate must spend hours to build their own email list to send out a couple emails and the director has it handed to them on a silver platter.

[Hunter45]

Greg:
You said it all in the first line of this post. "I" put together etc. NAFA puts out a bio and sends the bio to the membership. The rest should be up to the person running for the office.

Ev, If I had not been retired, I'm not sure I could have spent the number of hours required to input the Directory info into a data base that I could use with the Merge feature of MS Word to send out my personalized campaign information. I was turned down when I specifically ASKED for NAFA DB access. Had I not had the time and technological ability to do what I did, I doubt I would be a DAL today.

I stand by my original logic that ALL candidates should have access to USE of the DB to send out their campaign messages. Fred had it right: to do otherwise, does give the incumbent an unfair advantage.

As for 30% of the NAFA email list being inaccurate, I have a simple cure for that: When NAFA gets an "email returned" notice on ANY NAFA communication, ideally it should be copied to the region's director for a phone follow up to correct it. Keeping a "clean" DB is paramount for successful communications. A further idea would be to email out a list of "bad" email addresses to ask other members to offer up corrections if they know them. Or the "bad" email addresses could be published in HCs for correction by the member or friends of the member.

[everetkhorton]

Ev, If I had not been retired, I'm not sure I could have spent the number of hours required to input the Directory info into a data base that I could use with the Merge feature of MS Word to send out my personalized campaign information. I was turned down when I specifically ASKED for NAFA DB access. Had I not had the time and technological ability to do what I did, I doubt I would be a DAL today.

I stand by my original logic that ALL candidates should have access to USE of the DB to send out their campaign messages. Fred had it right: to do otherwise, does give the incumbent an unfair advantage.

As for 30% of the NAFA email list being inaccurate, I have a simple cure for that: When NAFA gets an "email returned" notice on ANY NAFA communication, ideally it should be copied to the region's director for a phone follow up to correct it. Keeping a "clean" DB is paramount for successful communications. A further idea would be to email out a list of "bad" email addresses to ask other members to offer up corrections if they know them. Or the "bad" email addresses could be published in HCs for correction by the member or friends of the member.

Greg:
IF a person does not have the time to go over the directory, (the way it use to be) and type in the email address, do you think he/she has the time to be director. Why not make the DB available to everyone? Just print it on line under members only section of the web site. I am sure Fred has time to keep the email address up dated. <G>.

[Ron Clarke]

Ha -- At the end of the last NAFA Director At Large race, I think Greg and I were standing in the street not with empty sixguns, but with smoking telephones! I sure didn't feel like I was shooting at anyone, anyway; I hope that's not how it looked from outside. Greg and I had several long and friendly phone conversations through the summer and fall. Ours was a civil contest, indeed. Among other things, Greg had a longer and more consistent record of attendance at NAFA Meets, I suspect he started earlier and worked harder developing his e-mail directory, and he used that directory extensively. To what extent any one thing made the difference is impossible to say. When an election comes down to a handful of votes, any single variable could claim to be the deciding factor. But remember, there was no incumbent in our race. We started on equal footing. That takes me back to my earlier question:

I don't recall ever receiving an e-mail election appeal from a NAFA incumbent. Is that a problem? How often has that happened?

[Ron Clarke]

The Hawk Board is the UK equivalent of NAFA. Different incorporation structure but same basic goals, preserve falconry.

When the UK banned fox hunting the traditional way, a loop hole was found by the fox hunts. The loop hole allowed the hunt to continue if the dogs were used to flush for a bird of prey. Golden Eagles and European Eagle Owls were snapped up by fox hunt clubs and horrendous prices. Other members of the hunting (all hunting) community ignored or mildly complained this exploitation of the laws allowed for falconry. Geoff Dalton pointed out that neither the loop hole or the laws allowing dogs to be used to pursue and flush for trained raptors mattered. What mattered was the welfare of these Eagles and Owls at the hands of inept fox hunt clubs. Geoff's concern for the welfare of the raptors was inferred as support for the fox hunts activities (which it was not) and he was ostracized by the old boys club.

Thanks, Fred. Once again, we are reminded powerful mendacity is not limited to Tennessee Williams plays.

[Eagle Owl]

Just the same, I don't recall ever receiving an e-mail election appeal from a NAFA incumbent. Is that a problem? How often has that happened?

Ron, it has happened before. I can't comment on other directorates, but it has happened in the Central directorate.

[Tony James]

The Hawk Board is the UK equivalent of NAFA. Different incorporation structure but same basic goals, preserve falconry.

When the UK banned fox hunting the traditional way, a loop hole was found by the fox hunts. The loop hole allowed the hunt to continue if the dogs were used to flush for a bird of prey. Golden Eagles and European Eagle Owls were snapped up by fox hunt clubs and horrendous prices. Other members of the hunting (all hunting) community ignored or mildly complained this exploitation of the laws allowed for falconry. Geoff Dalton pointed out that neither the loop hole or the laws allowing dogs to be used to pursue and flush for trained raptors mattered. What mattered was the welfare of these Eagles and Owls at the hands of inept fox hunt clubs. Geoff's concern for the welfare of the raptors was inferred as support for the fox hunts activities (which it was not) and he was ostracized by the old boys club.

Hi Fred,

perhaps you need to expand on what appears currently to be a wholly prejudiced and inaccurate statement?
You made the point elsewhere that you picked your weapon according to the arena (or some such expression), and intimated that a forum demands a less considered response than a face to face meeting for example. I would suggest, if your intention is to represent US falconers, it is better to maintain a considered approach based in fact, and to avoid saying things, even on a forum, that might embarrass NAFA.
Any representative of falconry should remember to leave aside any willingness to peddle rumour or inuendo, or to rabble rouse in support of personal prejudices while serving others.

Regards,

Tony.

[Ron Clarke]

Ron, it has happened before. I can't comment on other directorates, but it has happened in the Central directorate.

Thanks, Brandi. What was the result in those past instances?

[Eagle Owl]

Thanks, Brandi. What was the result in those past instances?

Incumbent won.

[frootdog]

Ron, it has happened before. I can't comment on other directorates, but it has happened in the Central directorate.

I can attest that it has happened (actually the director in question used list to give support to a candidate that was running and that candidate won), and would like to further add that the director in question NEVER once used the email list before he used it to bid for re-election and did not use it for anything after getting elected either.

[Eagle Owl]

Incumbent won.

I have to amend my post. It was in 2007 and the outgoing director, Ben Ohlander, sent an e-mail out to the directorate, first one ever, to endorse Lance Christianson for Central Director. Lance won the election.