 |
 |
 |
 |
VP topic #1: conflicts
Thu, 02/04/2010 - 9:22pm
A month into this and it's obvious to me that 90% of the board stuff we have to do this year has little to do with biking (the VP is one of the four "Executive Board" members who vote on most things). Realistically we'll spend a lot more time and effort on nonprofit governance questions than we will talking about upgrades and Cat 5s in the masters.
I am going to throw out some actual voting/discussion issues that would put any normal person to sleep, but we have to deal with them this year.
Issue number one: conflicts policy.
The VP has some oversight of NCNCA grants, which might total over $25k. All three candidates could end up with conflicts because of that, whether it's a grant for a race you're running or deciding how much money to put towards mentors or who knows what. It will be impossible to avoid conflicts because NCNCA will always be run by people who have a foot in bicycle racing.
As VP would you accept an NCNCA policy that said the VP and his club or company can't be the recipient of any NCNCA grants? It would apply as well to anyone in a similar position as officer/board. That would mean serving these roles forfeits some money. If that's way too extreme, what should the policy be?
-Tad
2010 NCNCA Treasurer
Co-director, Golden Gate Velo
I too was surprised by the "Eric gave the best response" line.
Green -
"Candidate question" implied to me that the answers to the questions were what was being solicited on behalf of the voting teams, not the "scoring" of those answers by Tad. It's not Star Search after all.
I mean, when was the last time you saw a political debate where the moderator told the audience which candidate gave the "better" response??
ZebraMan wrote:I thought you were soliciting our opinions, Tad, not rating us on your scale. I find that rather pretentious.
Uh-oh. That's probably a negative vote on the Borek attitude gauge.
A post entitled "Candidate Question" where you are running for a rather important office. You REALLY thought he was just soliciting feedback/opinions and was not using it to form his perspective on the most qualified candidate? Pretentious? Really?
I thought you were soliciting our opinions, Tad, not rating us on your scale. I find that rather pretentious.
Uh-oh. That's probably a negative vote on the Borek attitude gauge.
Yeah this is a question that's been addressed a kajillion times and there are some easy solutions that aren't too severe. Everyone seems on board with the typical policy - that you can't vote on things that will directly benefit you. I think we need to formalize that at NCNCA as part of the 2010 budget that one of you will be voting on shortly. I'm not hearing any disagreement so to me this is a 3-way tie.
I gotta say this is a hard pick, all three of you bring something good to the table!
-Tad
Co-director, Golden Gate Velo
Great question.
I don't think the club or program that the officer serves should be punished just because they have a member on the board.
I personally would recuse myself from voting on the topic and let the club or program compete for the grant on it's own merit.
Ron
There's money available for races?? Excellent. Any to compensate for the loss of a "P?"
I've been a lawyer for 20+ years, Tad. Conflicts of interest, fiduciary duties, confidential communications and ethical decisions come with the job. As a public defender, judging potential conflicts of interest comes every time I open a file. Does that make me more qualified or more ethical than the other guys? I don't think so. All three of us are ethical people, and none of us would use the position to advantage ourselves or our team.
If a particular grant or a motion before the Board directly affected my personal interests or those of my team or club, I would abstain from voting or deciding the grant. Just as I abstained from voting in the VP election as the delegate of CycleCircus. Most ethical decisions are pretty obvious.
I do not think it's necessary or appropriate for me or Ron to abstain from votes relating to mentoring, or for any of the three of us to do so on issues relating to race promotion in general, or Eric from officiating issues, or Lorri from womens' racing issues. Our experience and participation in various areas of the sports help make us valuable officers. But if a grant app or a motion before the Board would benefit the VP or his team/club, he should not be involved in its decision.
That question really hits home for me, since in addition to running for Vice President I have applied for several of the grants NCNCA gives to promoters.
If it came to it, I would give up the privilage of receiving grants if I am elected Vice President.
However, it is important to consider that the purpose of the grants to Junior races and new races is to make more and better racing available to riders. Taking that into consideration, I think that a less absolute solution could be worked out, such as prohibiting an officer from voting for their own grants, and requiring additional information from anybody with a potential conflict of interest. I would be willing to submit the budgets for my races to relevant officers, as well as any other information requested.
I might add that I spent over 27 years in a job with very strict conflict-of-interest rules, and that I have also been subject for over 13 years subject to the conflict-of-interest laws because of my activities in the community. Dealing with potential conflicts-of-interest is easy, as long as there is full and honest disclosure.
== Eric