Here is an e-mail I just sent to the NBO.
Chris,
Thank you for taking the time to lay this out and for your continued effort on behalf of the Association. I think we all agree on the intent—modernizing governance and improving participation. That is not the issue.
The issue is timing, completeness, and clarity.
Bottom line: what has been put out for a vote as a Constitution and supporting Bylaws is not ready for a membership vote. What you should have done is conducted a no cost poll to get input on the idea. Instead, you rushed to failure. Did you not listen to the feedback in the NBO/Chapter Leaders meeting?
There are several fundamental concerns that remain unresolved:
1. The Framework Is Not Fully Developed. While the intent was to separate the 2013 Constitution into a Constitution and Bylaws, what has actually been presented is:
- A significantly reduced Constitution, and
- A Bylaws structure that now contains most of the operational and governance authority
However, key elements of how this new system will function are still: Not finalized, Not clearly defined, and Not consistently understood across the membership.
That alone should give us pause before asking members to approve it.
2. Voting Structure Is Still Undefined. There are still unanswered questions regarding:
- How Chapter votes are weighted
- How votes are verified at the Chapter level
- How proxy authority is obtained and documented
- How at-large members are represented
These are not minor administrative details—these define who has a voice in the organization.
3. Members Do Not Have Full Access or Visibility. A large portion of the membership:
- Does not actively use Teamhouse
- Has invalid or outdated email contact information
- Relies on mailed materials for awareness (and the info you are putting out in e-mails are not getting to most of the members).
As it stands, many members are receiving ballots without having had a meaningful opportunity to:
- Review finalized documents
- Understand second- and third-order effects
- Participate in informed discussion
That undermines the integrity of the vote, even if technically permissible.
4. The Documents Themselves Are Not Finalized. We are being asked to vote on:
- A framework that is still being discussed
- Processes that are still being developed
- Implementation details that are not yet resolved
That is backwards.
We should first:
- Finalize the structure
- Clearly communicate how it works
- Allow time for review and discussion
- Then bring it to a vote
5. This Is Not About Resistance to Change.
Most of us support:
- Separating Constitution and Bylaws
- Modernizing governance
- Improving efficiency
But those changes must be: Thought out, Complete, Transparent, and Understood by the membership...this is not the case.
Right now, we are not there yet.
Recommended Way Ahead...
I strongly recommend we:
1. Pause the current vote (which is what you told the Chapter President's and leaders on the call).
2. Use the time between now and the Convention to:
- Resolve outstanding governance questions
- Finalize the documents (I already gave you a good start on the Constitution, quite a bit of changes)
- Clearly define voting procedures
- Ensure full member visibility and access
Then bring a complete, fully understood proposal to the membership for a vote.
This approach does not stop progress—it ensures we get it right.
We all want what is best for the SFA. Taking a few extra months to do this properly protects the organization, strengthens trust, and ensures the outcome is both legitimate and durable.
Respectfully,
Pete
