Don’t worry many of us may not be posting but we are reading. Trying to determine how we make educated decisions about who we would like to see in these positions, so we can provide input into the single voice of the team.
I only wish my life offered some structure that allowed me to volunteer at some minor level, to really contribute. At this time, all I have time for is reading, talking amongst team members and hopefully making a good decision. With what I’ve seen so far, there is no bad decision to be made for the president’s position.

Lorri,

Thanks. I'd like to throw my hat in the ring for the treasurer position for 2010. I'll be sending you my candidate statement later today.

Chris Phipps

windblocker wrote:velogirl wrote:the four Officers are working positions not just titles.

For those who might be wondering what you mean by this, could you please explain it. In addition since you currently serve on the NCNCA Board, give us an idea of the amount of hours you put into your role.

thanks

Sure Jonathan. What I mean (and the job descriptions will help you understand this as well -- follow the link), is that the four Officer positions are not figure-heads as you see on some BODs. Each of the four Officers has unique responsibilities -- daily, weekly, monthly, ad hoc -- that are part of the management and daily workings of the NCNCA. The responsibilities of the President are different than the responsibilities of the VP, etc.

In other words, there is no office staff that keeps the NCNCA humming along. In the case of some not-for-profits, there is a paid staff that does all the work and the BOD is simply a guidance and governance body. In the case of the NCNCA, without paid staff, the four Officers (and other BOD members) are doing the actual "work" of the NCNCA.

Regarding a time commitment, each position varies and workload varies by month as well, but I would say that on average, I spend 6-10 hours a month working specifically on NCNCA Treasurer business.

Lorri

velogirl wrote:the four Officers are working positions not just titles.

For those who might be wondering what you mean by this, could you please explain it. In addition since you currently serve on the NCNCA Board, give us an idea of the amount of hours you put into your role.

thanks

Jess, regarding responses, try to remember that not all NCNCA members frequent the forum. Heck, I'm guessing lots of folks don't even know it exists. Since the deadline for nominations is not until the 15th, I anticipate that you'll see more activity in the coming weeks.

Lorri

WarrenG wrote:I like Jess's idea. I for one would much rather have both Ron and Lorri, instead of one winning and one "losing". Yes, the "loser" could still be an appointed VP, but that's not the same.

I am wondering, as far as working on behalf of the NCNCA's individual members and their needs, is there really a difference if one person is President and the other person is Vice President? Does it really matter who is which? They both get an equal vote on items before the Board.

Warren, the four Officers are working positions not just titles. Each has a pretty robust job description and assigned duties that take place throughout the season. You'll find the job descriptions here:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddk8twhq_29ct4dmhcx

Lorri

Good point, Warren.
I hope that Lorri and Ron work something out. As far as "limiting others," I'm not seeing a whole lot of "others" participating in these discussions...

I like Jess's idea. I for one would much rather have both Ron and Lorri, instead of one winning and one "losing". Yes, the "loser" could still be an appointed VP, but that's not the same.

I am wondering, as far as working on behalf of the NCNCA's individual members and their needs, is there really a difference if one person is President and the other person is Vice President? Does it really matter who is which? They both get an equal vote on items before the Board.

velogirl wrote:Jess, I would consider this but only if you can promise me the Nobel Peace Prize!

Oh, so sorry Lorri. We just awarded the last one. Would you settle for a Congressional Medal of Honor instead?

I would not be against it. Lorri and I have worked well together in the past. In many ways I see us as very much alike in our approach to things.

Cheers,
Ron

Jess, I would consider this but only if you can promise me the Nobel Peace Prize!

Seriously though, while I appreciate your endorsement, I think limiting our candidates would be counter to the democratic process and our goal of EXPANDING BOD participation in the coming years. I can't speak for Ron, but I personally can't commit to more than a one-year commitment at this point and I would hate to think that we might discourage potential Officers for running in either 2010 or 2011. I've served the BOD for the past three years and at this point I'm committed to serving at least one more year (2010).

Lorri

I would like to propose something to the obvious candidates for office. Accepting the fact that the Forum and Mail server of the NCNCA are the primary modes of discussion of all issues pertinent to the region, I think that every member who onitors or participates regularly, or who has even been following the several pages of discussions regaring the upcoming election, two very dedicated, qualified and diligent officer candidates for the highest office have emerged.
I would propose to these two exemplary folks that they reach an accord and both serve. That, I believe, would best serve the needs of the NCNCA -- especially as we try to fill the gaping chasm of Casey's departure.
Because Lorri is presently a Board member, I suggest to the candidates that they agree to run and endorse each other as President (Lorri) and Vice President (Ron), with the understanding that they would endorse the other in the opposite role for 2011, should they still so desire.
I believe these two individuals have shown over the years that they would provide enthusiastic leadership and continuity for the region.

I strongly encourage Ron and Lorri to consider my proposal.

WarrenG wrote:

Casey, I wonder if there's a way to encourage people who don't get elected to feel like they can still be involved and help by becoming a VP. I, for one, didn't know that it was possible for more than the 4 elected officers to be active board members.

Warren, that is the goal. Our hope is to INCREASE the number of individuals who are involved at the BOD level with the NCNCA.

Lorri

George, your negative descriptors might apply to some previous NCVA boards, but not the current one. The NCVA Board for the last year has been very effective. We are also fortunate to have a number of very active NCVA members and Supervisors who play important roles in the velodrome community.

Casey, I wonder if there's a way to encourage people who don't get elected to feel like they can still be involved and help by becoming a VP. I, for one, didn't know that it was possible for more than the 4 elected officers to be active board members.

Originally the Velodrome Association board had 13 elected board members. The number was reduced to 9 since.

1) there was problems getting a quorum due to so many board members not showing up at meetings.

2) there wasn't enough interested people so there was a hard time filling all 13 board positions.

The Velodrome Assoc. bylaws where changed to reduce the number of board members from 13 to the current 9.

The NCNCA board can actually have as many board members are there are interested people since the elected board can appoint as many additional board positions as they want.

Warren,

The public should know that the NCVA:

1) In prior years had nine candidates run unopposed.

2) The BOD is elected and its officers selected afterward by the BOD.

3) Often doesn't have all its board members attend its meetings.

4) Has in the past objected to making the discourse at its meetings available to its constituents.

IMO, a BOD should have a mixture of returning and new elected representatives. This gives a fresh perspective as well as continuity. That's what I'm hoping we'll see on the 2010 Board of Directors.

At October's NCNCA meeting the BOD will be discussing:
* BAR/BAT categories changes
* A chip timing presentation
* NCNCA officer's job descriptions and elections
* Newsletter ideas for 2010
* Annual meeting location
Anyone who is a member of NCNCA may attend and voice their opinion.

George Meilahn
Category 2 Track racer since 2006
USAC Official last two years
VP Road last two years

Lorri, two weeks is plenty long enough for the voting, but since the club delegates must vote on behalf of their club members, there needs to be sufficient time for awareness and discussion about the candidates between club delegates and club members before the voting begins. I suspect that most clubs would do this kind of discussion at their regular club meetings.

A method that was fine when there was only one candidate per office is no longer the best method.

I understand the need to elect a new President soon, so Casey can move on (and he will be greatly missed), but I think other board members can step in to help out during the time it would take to do things in way that's most appropriate.

Alternatively, at the October NCNCA board meeting you can propose an amendment to the Constitution that allows individuals to vote, and two weeks later the clubs can vote on that amendment. Immediately thereafter you can commence the voting for officers by individuals and be finished with that by the meeting on Nov. 2, or soon after. In this format there is no need to have time allowed for club delegates to discuss the candidates with the club members.

You could do as the NCVA normally does, announce the candidates by a certain date, and voting starts 2 days later and ends about 10 days later, with results announced on the 11th day.

Warren, in this internet world, you really think two weeks isn't long enough to hold an election? I think that's what the current USAC election period is. And it's certainly longer and provides for more communication with clubs and members than the previous election method, which consisted of 10 minutes during the December NCNCA meeting from nomination to election.

The Executive Board agreed because of the importance of this transition, that we would move the election period up in the calendar year one month. There will be no general NCNCA Association meeting in December (so yes, the November 2nd meeting is the last of the year).

Lorri

I think Elis was referring to the idea that if the election is postponed, a current VP would have to remain in the job for an additional period of time, beyond their expected term.

The constitution says the election takes place before the last meeting of the year. That's Nov. 2?

If the last meeting were in December, then it looks to me like there is time to amend the Constitution to allow individuals to vote, and/or allow sufficient time for clubs and their members to discuss the announced list of candidates.

According to the constitution, having the VP fill in for the President in case of resigning or absence is part of the job description.

Warren is correct.

Ron

Elis wrote:Quote:The current VP can serve an extra period of time in the President's stead if the President is unavailable.

Have you checked that with the current VP?

I would hope at least one of the four VP's could help out.

Quote:The current VP can serve an extra period of time in the President's stead if the President is unavailable.

Have you checked that with the current VP?

Wait a minute...
The candidates have not been announced yet. After the candidates are announced (who knows when that will be?) clubs need to learn from their members which candidate is the best choice, and then vote by Nov. 2?

There needs to be a reasonable amount of time for a club to know the candidates, then discuss it (if desired) at their next regularly-scheduled meeting, and then vote. But that's impossible given the current election procedure and time frames.

It's becoming obvious that an election procedure that worked when there was only one candidate for each office is no longer appropriate. I suggest that the election be postponed to allow time for a better election procedure. The current VP can serve an extra period of time in the President's stead if the President is unavailable.

perfect. once we have all the candidates in place, the clubs can discuss with their members on whom they would like to see fill the 4 roles.

Jonathan, I remember that meeting -- I was elected Treasurer. I think I bribed you with a root beer for your vote!!! The only thing I would add is that only club delegates were able to vote (one/club).

Voting for the current election will take place on-line. Ryan Fu has volunteered to manage the election process and verify club delegate status. It will conclude with the November 2nd scheduling meeting.

Lorri

windblocker wrote:The last time I went to an NCNCA Election Meeting there was a total of 15. This is how it went down, There was one nomination for each of the officer positions, then you rose your hand to vote.

The meeting is in Concord on a Monday night. To get more participation,
will the NCNCA be offering a online voting site?

You can find the NCNCA constitution at http://www.sonic.net/~caseyk/NCNCAcon.pdf

How does one go about reviewing the NCNCA Constitution?

For the sake of verification would it not be a good idea to make this document public?

Ron

I guess you will have to vote and find out.

Ron

"History is fine, but technology has changed the way we see the World and created new possibilities.

Out of all the years NCNCA has had elections, this one I feel will have more impact on the district going forward.
This is the first time in my racing history that there has been a potential for a true changing of the guard and a chance to bring in new and progressive ideas that are not born from 1978 or earlier.
Old school: We do it this way because this is the way we have always done it. It was good enough in 1978 so it's good enough in 2009-2010.
New School: We evaluate the potential and look at what serves the community the best. "

Ron, I seem to remember in 2006 when timing chips and results were the source of your ire. In fact, if folks want to read those comments about Ron's technology predictions and promises, they can refer to the forum on June 2, 2006 - it's on page 16 of the archives speaking about race results. Ron promised that technology already existed to inexpensively provide accurate chip timing - then Casey called your bluff and asked if you would be using that technology at your own team's event. Never happened.

We have been looking for that miracle inexpensive timing system for 2 years to use at our 'cross events - we've looked at Jaguar systems from St. Louis, a French system called DAG, an Australian system, even Monterey's Hard Card system. They all use the latest RFID technology - but none of them are applicable to blanket finishes on 35' wide criterium courses. Ron, you denigrated the stodgy old NCNCA in 2006 - can you now come up and deliver your promises from that posting - or perhaps you could apologize for those remarks that do not hold up to scrutiny?

Is this the sort of leadership you'll provide if you get your hands on the steering wheel? You've had the chance to stand for election since 1978 when your racing started - how come THIS is the year?

Instead of comments from "They ought to..." I am far more impressed with ideas and comments from folks who report "This is what happened when I tried...."

Tom Simpson
Pilarcitos Cyclesports

The last time I went to an NCNCA Election Meeting there was a total of 15. This is how it went down, There was one nomination for each of the officer positions, then you rose your hand to vote.

The meeting is in Concord on a Monday night. To get more participation,
will the NCNCA be offering a online voting site?

Ron - Go back and read what I said. I was giving people some history on how and why the NCNCA is structured like it is. Did I ever say anywhere that we can't make changes because this is how we have always done things? No I didn't.

Warren - Sorry but the bylaws can't be changed in time for the next election. Actually NCNCA only has a constitution and the method of amending the constitution is spelled out in the constitution. To amend the constitution the proposed amendment has to be brought up at a regular meeting and receive a majority vote. Then a second meeting has to be scheduled ( no sooner than two weeks from the time when the amendment proposal was passed) and at the second meeting the amendment has to receive a 2/3s vote

Under the current constitution you can have as many board members as you like. While the 4 main positions [ Prez, VP, Treas, Sec.] are the elected positions you can have as many vice presidents be appointed as the board wants, thus making room at the table for everyone who wants to help run the NCNCA and giving all those people a vote at the NCNCA meetings.

There is a provision in the NCNCA constitution to have individuals as members of NCNCA, this change was added wen NCNCA ran a independent racing program, but the constitution states that individuals don't get a vote. Also clubs from outside the NCNCA can join but likewise don't get a vote.

And as far as I know there are no rules that force a club to be a member of NCNCA. The main reasons for a club to join NCNCA are.

1) They want to get use of the NCNCA race equipment for their event.

2) They want to take part int he BAT rankings

3) If they want to be able to vote at NCNCA meetings.

Of the NCNCA member clubs I think the vast majority fall into the first two categories. Even after we started broadcasting the audio of meetings online to make it easier for people to attend the meeting most of those who attend the internet broadcast of the meetings are individuals who aren't associated with a club but are interested in what is going on.

I need to ride now, so I'll write more later...

But to Casey's concern... If clubs knew they would get more votes for having more members they might try harder to recruit new members. This would make clubs stronger and get more riders into clubs.

I rarely think it's good practice to have rules that are intended to "force" clubs to be part of the NCNCA. If there are benefits for a particular club then they will want to be part of NCNCA.

Further to Lorri's earlier point about large clubs gathering support for certain candidates... As it is now, a candidate doesn't need to convince 200 people to vote for them. They only need to convince 10-15 club delegates to vote for them.

And give some credit to club members. Most of them can think on their own enough that they won't vote for a candidate just because their club tells them to.

And again, because of internet access, things are changing, or, should change to incorporate this new paradigm. If some large club got a poor choice elected there would be many people made aware of any problems.

And let's be realistic, in a large club there will be many members who do not agree with the choice of the club's single delegate, but the NCNCA bylaws require that individual people have no say in who is elected to run the NCNCA.

Lorri mentioned that this election has more candidates and a chance for more people to get involved. Even if they don't get to be one of the 4 people elected to the BOD? I don't think the current BOD structure accommodates this desired increase in participation very well. If there were more BOD positions available then more people would have a direct role in governing and helping the community.

The Velodrome Assoc has about 400-600 people in its community and 9 BOD positions. This encourages more active participation by more (interested) people. To have so few people on the NCNCA BOD is a handicap-a limiter, and should be corrected.

The fact is, the Officers of the NCNCA make decisions that affect 3500 riders, and those decisions affect individuals far more than they affect clubs. I think individuals should get to vote. The bylaws can be changed before the next election.

I'm late for my ride...

Ron, I agree with you that change is good -- that's one of the reasons I decided to run for President. However, I don't advocate change just for change's sake. I think the decisions made by the new BOD should have a positive impact on the services we provide to the local racing community. If something isn't broken, then we shouldn't fix it.

This election is a great opportunity for us in many ways, but I don't necessarily see it as a changing of the guard. There are some folks currently on the BOD who I think provide great value to the NCNCA and hope they will continue to serve.

What I do see is a great opportunity to EXPAND the number of people who are involved in the governance and management of the NCNCA. Rather than having just a small, select group of folks responsible for this task (many of them the same ones who are involved every year), this election has provided us the opportunity to reach out to other folks in the racing community, ask them to get involved (by running for office), and eliciting feedback from the membership. This is the first time in my memory that we've ever openly discussed Officer elections (let alone asked for nominations on the public forums) and I think just this gesture has really gotten a lot of folks thinking about how they could be involved and what things we might do to improve the racing experience.

Lorri

Ron and Warren, I don't think Casey is saying "we do it this way because we've always done it this way." I think he's simply answering the question about why we do it this way and giving you some background information about why this system was established.

Personally, I find Casey to be pretty open about new ideas. I've questioned lots of the ways we do things in the NCNCA during my term on the BOD and I don't feel my ideas have fallen on deaf ears.

One of the changes I proposed was to organize the election process and make it more public (which is exactly what we've done). Instead of simply showing up at the December meeting and drawing straws over positions, I suggested we announce the election and move it forward in the calendar year to allow for a smooth transition between out-going officers and directors and the new officers and directors.

Not-for-profit organizations are governed by Bylaws. Because of the Bylaws, this election will be one vote = one member club. If we think we should re-visit the Bylaws, we can do that for future elections (and other issues that we might want to re-examine in the Bylaws).

Lorri

This is exactly what I am talking about when I mention new ideas and change.
Casey, just because something was established in a certain way 20 or 30 years ago doesn't mean that the process is still relevant or the best way to do things today.
History is fine, but technology has changed the way we see the World and created new possibilities.

Out of all the years NCNCA has had elections, this one I feel will have more impact on the district going forward.
This is the first time in my racing history that there has been a potential for a true changing of the guard and a chance to bring in new and progressive ideas that are not born from 1978 or earlier.
Old school: We do it this way because this is the way we have always done it. It was good enough in 1978 so it's good enough in 2009-2010.
New School: We evaluate the potential and look at what serves the community the best.

Having only delegates from member clubs is incredibly inaccurate and unrepresentative of the thoughts and opinions of those that will be subject to the outcome, the riders.
This is the time of season that new clubs are forming, old clubs are changing.
What about the unattached riders?
Why do they not get a voice?

Everyone who races pays into the NCNCA in some way, like the rider surcharge. It may be invisible to the rider, but the fee still exists.

Ron

Warren,

NCNCA isn't an organization of individual members. It is an organization made up of clubs. Only clubs are members of NCNCA. This is pretty much how every Local Association is set up, which isn't very surprising since NCNCA is the oldest local association and most of the others around the country are based on how NCNCA was originally set up.

When NCNCA was set up the club structure was much stronger in USCF. For example at the old USCF house of delegates only USCF member clubs voted on legislation. I believe at first all USCF clubs had one vote, then in later years the number of votes was based on size. A club of less than 5 members had no votes. a club with 5-9 riders had 1 vote. A club with 10-19 members had 2 votes and so on up to the Max number of votes a club could have was 6 votes I believe.

Opening up NCNCA to individual membership and letting individuals vote would further erode the reason for club membership and take even more support away from the club system. I think we need to look for ways to strengthen the reasons people should belong to clubs. Remember it is via clubs that most of our races are promoted. Fewer and weaker clubs will lead to fewer and less organized races in the long run.

I think it is a very bad thing to give a small club the same number of votes as a large club. The NCNCA officers should represent each person in the NCNCA with equal consideration.

With the widespread use of the internet, I don't think a large club could organize a lot of votes for one person, to the detriment of others, as easily as could have happened a few years ago, because small clubs, and members now have easy access to information.

I don't think the NCNCA should have a voting procedure that is inherently different from that used throughout a democratic society.

Jess, I'm happy to serve as president with whomever is elected VP. Michael and I have a really good working relationship which we've developed over a number of years and spent a good amount of time discussing these positions prior to deciding we would like to work together. Ultimately, I am running for president and Michael is running for VP and the membership will vote on these nominations separately.

Regarding elections, each NCNCA member club has one delegate who is authorized to vote (on any NCNCA business). This equals the playing field for the smaller clubs. For example, let's say one of the larger clubs was fielding a candidate for each of the four elected positions. If this large club rallied all of their members to vote, it would skew the vote in favor of that club. One vote/club should provide a very broad representation of votes for the entire NCNCA membership.

The Bylaws state that each of the four officer positions (president, VP, treasurer, and secretary) are elected individually. It doesn't preclude one candidate from running for multiple positions, so I guess, in theory, a presidential candidate could also run for VP, but that probably doesn't make statistical sense.

At this point, a number of qualified folks have contacted me about the treasurer position (as well as other candidates who have not publicly announced their nomination for all of the other positions. It's exciting to see that so many folks are interested in serving the NCNCA.

Lorri

What proportion of licensed racers in NCNCA do not belong to a NCNCA-member club?

I have forgotton, but do NCNCA-member clubs with a large number of members (NCNCA constituents) get more votes than clubs with fewer constituents? IOW, a club with only 10 members has as much influence as a club with 200 members?

FWIW, the NCVelodrome Association allows each member of the NCVA to vote for 9 people, to fill the 9 spots on the BOD, and then the BOD members choose the officers.

ZebraMan wrote:Does your declaration mean that you

I also believe that the best practice is to not have a vice presidential election at all, but rather to have the top two finishers for President serve those two positions (as in early American politics). That's a nice litmus test so that the vice office is not treated as a lower status one, or as a lesser commitment. Just a thought.

I would have no objection to this either way it worked out.

I am wondering if the election would be better if we allowed individuals to vote rather than just a single club delegate. This would allow for a more accurate view of what the membership really wants and not be exclusive to only NCNCA Member clubs.
There are after all several if not many clubs/teams that are not NCNCA member clubs.

It would be pretty simple to do online, just have each person use their USA Cycling license number to register as a voter.

Ron

Does your declaration mean that you would only consider serving as Pres with Michael as VP, or that you'd work with another VP?

And is Michael saying he's only a candidate for VP if you are elected Pres, or would he be prepared to work with Ron, or one of the other interested parties?

My experience with BoD's is that it's more difficult to find a qualified and enthusiastic Treasurer than it is an ambitious candidate for President.

I also believe that the best practice is to not have a vice presidential election at all, but rather to have the top two finishers for President serve those two positions (as in early American politics). That's a nice litmus test so that the vice office is not treated as a lower status one, or as a lesser commitment. Just a thought.

Candidates run individually for each of the four elected positions: President, 1st VP, Treasurer, and Secretary.

do the candidates run on a Pres/VP ticket that is voted on together or do they run individually?

Of course, this means we need to find a great Treasurer to replace me. It's a crucial position. If anyone is interested, ping me and I'll share all the nitty gritty.

When will I learn never to say never.

it's official! I'm running for 2010 NCNCA President along with Michael Hernandez as VP. We'll be an outstanding team to take the NCNCA to the next level. With the opportunities provided by the transition to a new BOD, our goal is to improve the racing experience and support for everyone in the NCNCA -- racers, race promoters, officials, coaches, even the girls (and boys) in the feedzone.

Lorri

Best of luck Casey. You will be sorely missed!!!!

WarrenG wrote:You might find some ideas and examples by looking at http://www.ridethetrack.com and then follow the links to the "Board" of Directors. We (normally) have 9 members on the BOD and this definitely helps to spread the workloads and tasks among more people. And by having more people on the board it increases the amount of access/interaction between the BOD and the velodrome community.

The NCVA minutes are always posted online and you'll find references to who is to be responsible for various tasks and follow up. Perhaps the NCNCA should try to increase the number of people on its board.
NCVA also has an easy to find link to its bylaws. Hint, hint...

You might find some ideas and examples by looking at http://www.ridethetrack.com and then follow the links to the "Board" of Directors. We (normally) have 9 members on the BOD and this definitely helps to spread the workloads and tasks among more people. And by having more people on the board it increases the amount of access/interaction between the BOD and the velodrome community.

The NCVA minutes are always posted online and you'll find references to who is to be responsible for various tasks and follow up. Perhaps the NCNCA should try to increase the number of people on its board.

This is great news.

I am wondering if a start could be to have a special Forum Topic right here for NCNCA news, programs, and BOD Minutes.

I have been sifting through the minutes and there are missing months. There are also topics mentioned, like Guidelines proposed for Special Grant Fund, with no mention or discussion on any of the previous minutes from 2009.
Who, what, how, when, and where?

There are guidelines being suggested for programs that are illusive at best. If one is not aware of the program, how can they even know to ask about the guidelines?
I think this is what Lorri is addressing, and I applaud.

Myself or whom ever is elected president might strongly consider implementing a process for communicating with the membership and making it job number 1.
Great ideas that are stuck in someone's head, or buried in a single email are kind of useless.
As John Gerling pointed out, where are the by-laws posted? Shouldn't every dues paying member have a right to review them?
How can we play by the rules if we do not know what the rules are?

During the BOD meeting this Monday I did not hear anyone mention "action items" and time lines for completion of tasks.
These terms are illusive in the past minutes as well. How can anything get completed if there are no action items discussed and documented?
We are doing what? when? and how?

I am not trying to be on a soap box here, I am just identifying items that need attention and that I would be willing to attend to.

Ron

Hey Ron! The BOD has been working on just this. We're working on a much clearer delineation of duties so that programs and projects don't fall through the gaps. Some of the position descriptions have been pretty vague, so no one took direct responsibility for some programs. I think we've done a good job defining that and will make sure that all programs (like the travel grants, junior promoter subsidy, etc) get clearly posted on NCNCA.org and that the responsible Director communicates with membership about the programs (and where to find the information).

Lorri