|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 12, 2009 16:56:58 GMT -6
I would like to hear from everyone on here if you feel that Directors should be voted in or not. If we are going to do something like this then we need to know how many people out there want the voting right.
So then when it is presented to the board we can have a leg to stand on!
If not then I guess I will leave it up to you to contact your director and you can tell him what you would like to see done and let the chips fall where they may.
I can tell you and many of you have already seen how I feel about it, but if not I want to be able to vote in my director. I don't see why any director wouldn't be for this amendment, because if he is worth his weight in salt he will be voted back in office.
just some thoughts from the Ole' Hillbilly.
|
|
|
Post by hvtrapper on Jun 13, 2009 9:40:51 GMT -6
The by-laws of the ITA call for the directors to be appointed by the board. To have the membership vote on directors would require a change to the by-laws. Demoman would be the one to talk to about what would be necessary to accomplish your goal. As to the directors themselves, I've been an ITA member since 1971 and on the BOD since sometime in the early 90's including 3-2yr terms as president. The biggest problem I've seen with directors is how hard it is to get someone to step forward and volunteer to serve. That is why I'm back on the board, myself. When I was voted in as president I stepped down from district 7 hoping to get someone else from the area involved. I found only one other individual besides the director I replaced, willing to step up and he had to be replaced for failing to show up for the required, 2/4 per year, meetings. This has happened in several of the districts and is why there are open directorships right now. I was a director at large since being replaced as president in 2002 and when Craig was elected last fall thought I'd be taking some time off from the BOD. District 7 continued to be unrepresented so I volunteered to serve as it's director again. Criticism of the BOD in general and individual directors comes with the territory and is not a bad thing. I wish that all ITA members would take an active interest in their Association and let the directors know what they like/dislike so problems can be resolved, and good ideas advanced. Bitching back in the weeds does nothing but let problems and hard feelings fester. Internet forums offer the opportunity to voice and discuss problems and solutions but further action is needed. The Chinese symbol for opportunity is the same as danger with good reason. That's why I dislike the anonymity of the internet and hiding behind screen names. I AM hvtrapper Tom Walters district 7 director ITA Bettendorf, IA 563/359 6949 If anyone wants to step up and replace me, let me know, and I'll help make it happen and stick around to help you in anyway I can!
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 13, 2009 17:11:58 GMT -6
So no one thinks I'm hidding behind my user name my cantact info is in the sig. section of all my posts!
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jun 13, 2009 20:00:59 GMT -6
Absolutely members should have voting rights. Never seen an organization where members can not vote. If it needs a by laws change then change it.
|
|
|
Post by hvtrapper on Jun 14, 2009 5:39:29 GMT -6
Just to be clear, I was not attacking anyone in my last post. I was expressing my personal opinion on the internet and the ease of anonymous complaints. I also was expressing my frustration with recruiting and keeping new directors. Constructive criticism is one of the best ways to improve any endeavor and is very important. Keep pitching guys!
HBKen, I appreciate your open honesty and the fact you have your personal contact info on each and every post.
Tom Walters 1723 20th St Bettendorf, IA 563 359 6949 twalters@mchsi.com
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 14, 2009 8:31:24 GMT -6
Tom
No I never thought you were attacking me and I do believe that people can hide behind an identity. That is why I put my contact info on here.
Know that I am not bitching just to have something to do or just to hear myself bitch. I truly want a better trapping association, as I am sure many of the director do also. I think that the old way of thinking is not working for the ITA and there needs to fresh and new ideas. I also agree that more members need to be involved in the association but many people just want to let the other guy carry the load and I think that is wrong.
Tom, you know and I know that this whole pre staking mess came from the ITA and certain directors. That is why I think WE the as members should have the right to vote in the director. Do I believe that voting in our director would have not allowed this mess to come about? I don't know. It really chapped my A$$! when I found out who was involved and that it came from inside the ITA.
I really don't want to be out trying to fix something that the ITA got started in the first place. I really think that this move from ITA on the pre staking deal did nothing to further our rights as trappers and was more of a ANTI move then a PRO move.
By no means am I saying that I have all the answers. But I think there are other people that do and I know for a FACT! that they have stepped forward to volunteer to help but was rejected by the BOD because he would have rocked the boat TOO! much. You know rocking the boat sometimes is not a bad thing cause some times you knock the bad ones over board.
Another thing I wanted to address was if you were in my district and wanted to step down I would gladly step in. Well I've said enough and pissed enough people off and I know I will be now targeted by the BOD but so be it, An honest man is a free man and I guess that makes me a FREE TRAPPER!
|
|
|
Post by Scott W. on Jun 14, 2009 10:18:15 GMT -6
I'm in favor of the membership of a district voting on their own director. I, however, would like to know the reasoning for the appointing of a director when the bylaws were first created. Scott
|
|
|
Post by Horn on Jun 14, 2009 11:26:31 GMT -6
I am going to make an observation about the director selection process.
At present there are 4 vacant district BOD seats. Its hard enough to find volunteers let alone multiple candidates.
I know of a case that a Director has kept his seat for longer than he wanted because there was no one in his district who wanted the job.
Tom stepped up and took a BOD seat rather than seeing it empty after representing his district for many years.
We cant Vote someone in who doesn't want the job.
My Point is that we as MEMBERS need to get INVOLVED. If you want to become a director go to meetings see what it is all about, Talk to your Director offer to help with upcoming events, Let your director know what your opinions are. The more people who are ACTIVE in the Organization the more Choices there are for representation.
If a director does not hear differently; He will think that you are happy with the way things are. If you are happy with the way things are Please let your director know that also.
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 14, 2009 12:07:55 GMT -6
We cant Vote someone in who doesn't want the job. Horn come on now! We know that you can't vote someone in that does not want the job. They would put their selfs in for the job and if no-one was running against him, naturally he would get the job. But on the other hand, if he had someone running against him then the members in that district would vote for the person they thought would make the better director. So then that way if someone says "well I don't like my director" then u simply ask them "well did u vote for him", "no, no-one ran against him so he got the job automatically". "Then I guess u don't have a bitch coming, because you could have ran against him but u decided to let him carry the load and you just want to sit on the sideline and bitch about it." Now this way every member in that district has a say in his idea for the director. It is just like any politics. You run for office and are voted into office. that simple
|
|
|
Post by Eric Rector on Jun 14, 2009 13:18:04 GMT -6
My Point is that we as MEMBERS need to get INVOLVED. If you want to become a director go to meetings see what it is all about, Talk to your Director offer to help with upcoming events, Let your director know what your opinions are. The more people who are ACTIVE in the Organization the more Choices there are for representation. If a director does not hear differently; He will think that you are happy with the way things are. If you are happy with the way things are Please let your director know that also. Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jun 14, 2009 13:52:46 GMT -6
Guys, this is a two way street. Directors need to ask for opinions from the membership before acting, too.
Regarding open Director positions-there may be too many positions-24 is a huge number. Most Organizations that have region directors don't have 24 positions. More like 10-15. Or maybe the Directors should not be not be tied to a region. Not sure what the answer is but there must be a better way.
I for one will not stay involved with an organization where the members have no voting rights at choosing who is going to make the decisions on their behalf. If ITA changes their ByLaws to allow Directors positions via membership voting then I would consider running for Region 7 Director.
I contemplated the recent opening anyway, but when I found out how the process to become a Director was I chose not to. A "Good Ole Boys Club" I am not going to be a part of.
Voting rights should not be just limited to Directors, either. Membership should have voting rights with ByLaws and any issues/ITA position statements that are of real importance like the pre-staking issue.
|
|
|
Post by Horn on Jun 14, 2009 14:20:04 GMT -6
You guys make good points.
My point is; If you want changes in any organization you have to get involved in the organization to get those changes made.
Ken, I am not saying that Voting for directors is a bad Idea.
I am thinking that you will have the same lack of people wanting to step up and take the job. With a more cumbersome and costly system to get the same end results.
We currently vote for the officers at the General meeting at the convention.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jun 14, 2009 14:40:30 GMT -6
"We currently vote for the officers at the General meeting at the convention."
Correct me if I'm wrong but none of the Officers have voting rights at a BOD Meeting, except the President in case of breaking a tie. Only the Directors have voting rights in making the decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Horn on Jun 14, 2009 17:11:42 GMT -6
Kelly, I am not sure how that works as some officers are also directors.
They may be able to vote in the director capacity but not as an officer.
Tom may be able to answer that one.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jun 14, 2009 18:51:40 GMT -6
Kelly, I am not sure how that works as some officers are also directors. They may be able to vote in the director capacity but not as an officer. Tom may be able to answer that one. Yes, I understand that a Director can also be an Officer. As an Director they have voting rights but not as an Officer, except as mentioned above. My point was that these existing voting rights that members have mean absolutely nothing. Mearly token at best.
|
|
|
Post by x-demoman on Jun 14, 2009 21:25:48 GMT -6
As you all may or may not know I chanllenged the BODs decision to change and revote on the pre staking. That challenge is still in place. If we follow the By Laws it could end up being voted on by the members. What if they voted not to support the pre staking issue as it has turned out? ? Would you all be willing to accept what the majority of the members want?? I have be very supportive of changing the regs on pre staking and all the feed back I have recieved from the members of the District I represent is the reason I have voiced their desires. I did not talk to a select few but the current members in my district. To represent to other side of the issue, I could have just talked to the ones I felt would have supported leaving the regs as they are. I have in the past and will continue in the future to proceed as the members of my district desire. If someone wants my district they can have it. Gene
|
|
|
Post by centraliowa (ryan) on Jun 15, 2009 7:25:45 GMT -6
i would also be infavor of reducing the number of districts. i think 8 would be good, along with vp and president. divide the state in 1/8 and hopefully we could get 8 reps that really want to represent??
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 15, 2009 7:25:56 GMT -6
Gene
I am not doubting you as far as there being people that want to rid the state of pre staking, but also have yet to see them as the majority state wide. I was at the final NRC meeting and I did not see ONE person of the public there to say they were apposed to pre staking. Further more the DNR had a list of how many people commented on the pre staking issue. There were 39 total comments 10 wanted to do any with pre staking and 29 wanted to keep pre staking. I'm not a smart man, but it kinda sounds like there are more for pre staking then against.
NOTE: I am not trying to start an argument, but I do believe in stating the facts AS I know them and that is all I am trying to do here.
|
|
Nick C
Active Trap Talker
Posts: 73
|
Post by Nick C on Jun 15, 2009 8:24:15 GMT -6
Ken,
At Gene's place a few months back, he had the letters he sent out to his constituents of which he represents.
If my memory serves me correct, he had 20 people reply to him, 16 not in favor of prestaking and 4 in favor of it. Correct me if I'm wrong Gene.
Whether Gene agrees or disagrees with prestaking, it's a respectable representative of his constituents to represent the majorities ideas.
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 15, 2009 8:32:08 GMT -6
Nick
I saw the letters just as you did, what I am saying is that if these people felt so strongly about pre staking where were they when it came time to stand up for what they believed in. At the final NRC meeting there were 7 or 8 guys there to support pre staking and non agaisnst pre staking. Now if one feels stronly enough in what he believes in wouldn't he want to represent his stance by making either a comment to the DNR or to show at the NRC meeting?
|
|
|
Post by centraliowa (ryan) on Jun 15, 2009 13:40:19 GMT -6
hillibillyken, i have to agree with you. it is easy to check yes or no and mail to your director but it is another thing to actually go out and do something about it. if your lazy your lazy! Gene atleast made a attempt to represent his members, that i can respect.
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Jun 15, 2009 14:16:06 GMT -6
Gene
I disagree with you on the prestaking issue. Having said that I want you as an ITA Director for as long as possible. You are what a Director should be.
|
|
code
Hyper-Active Trap Talker
Posts: 175
|
Post by code on Jun 15, 2009 20:39:53 GMT -6
How long should a directors term be? When and Where would the voting take place? If by mail who pays for printing and postage and time to do them? If at the convention who wants to check memberships and addresses? I do actually think you have a great idea, just have some questions to make sure it is feasable. I have been a director for 1 year 5 months. Before that I went to almost every director meeting for near 9 years. My point being, if you have ambition GET INVOLVED. You don't need a "title" or position to help this ASSN. be better, just be there.
Cody
|
|
|
Post by 4fur on Jun 15, 2009 20:52:22 GMT -6
I still don't know exactly why the prestaking law was challenged but my first instinct was that it originated from the type that was tired of seeing more fur in competitors' traps and trucks than they were catching. So they saw this as a way to increase their catch without increasing their efforts. So it doesn't surprise me they were absent when it really counted. What does surprise me is the DNR listened to both sides and made a rational and not a predetermined decision. IMO, the best argument the anti-prestakers presented was it retarded recruitment and retention of young and part-time trappers (which I disagreed with). Let's all make a conscious effort to help a kid or beginning trapper experience some more success this season. And remember that ethics and size of fur check do not have to be indirectly correlated. Pride yourself on keeping it clean, legal and fun.
|
|
|
Post by longpond on Jun 15, 2009 21:02:43 GMT -6
My point being, if you have ambition GET INVOLVED. You don't need a "title" or position to help this ASSN. be better, just be there. Cody Cody you are right we have seen many people come to meetings and help as much or more than the directors have without being anything but informed and willing to help out. I have seen fellas step up to the plate after not being voted in to a director position and doing more and outlasting the person that got the position 10 fold. I don't care about desktop divas setting behind their keyboard coming up with plans to save the world. What I"d like to see is trappers that want to work and push the ITA into the future.
|
|
|
Post by Kelly on Jun 15, 2009 21:11:59 GMT -6
How long should a directors term be? When and Where would the voting take place? If by mail who pays for printing and postage and time to do them? If at the convention who wants to check memberships and addresses? I do actually think you have a great idea, just have some questions to make sure it is feasable. I have been a director for 1 year 5 months. Before that I went to almost every director meeting for near 9 years. My point being, if you have ambition GET INVOLVED. You don't need a "title" or position to help this ASSN. be better, just be there. Cody All the other organizations handle the voting process quite well.
|
|
|
Post by hillbillyken on Jun 16, 2009 8:21:39 GMT -6
I don't care about desktop divas setting behind their keyboard coming up with plans to save the world. What I"d like to see is trappers that want to work and push the ITA into the future. Jeff I really don't understand Why you have to attack people when they come up with ideas to help or as you would say "push the ITA into the future"? I am always hearing on here that the directors want our input but it seems that if the input happens to be for change or to criticize the way the ITA does things then you are hot on calling them names etc. Change can only come from fresh and new ideas and it seems that some are afraid of change with in the ITA. I'm not try to start a fight. what I'm saying is the name calling and personal attacks on here really necessary?
|
|
|
Post by centraliowa (ryan) on Jun 16, 2009 10:38:33 GMT -6
i would think as a director you would not be so defensive. we are all in favor of moving the ITA forward. We are brainstorming and brainstorming creates good ideas and bad ones. longpond please stop attacking people that are throwing out idea's. nobody is hiding behind a keyboard or screen name. most of us sign with our name or it is in our signature.
ryan adel iowa
|
|
|
Post by centraliowa (ryan) on Jun 16, 2009 10:42:54 GMT -6
Cody here are some idea's. How long should a directors term be? "3 years"
When and Where would the voting take place? "by us mail. the membership cost very little. everybody that wants to vote can pay for the postage to send in their vote."
If by mail who pays for printing and postage and time to do them? "sent to the ITA secretary by a certain date and then at the next BOD meeting a hour is set aside to count the ballots."
|
|
|
Post by k9 on Jun 16, 2009 18:26:12 GMT -6
How long should a Directors term be?
I do not recall many Directors positions having people stepping all over each other to get them. There is some interest now, mainly because of prestaking issues, and worries about what other issues we may not agree with some of the Directors on.
Some Districts you may have several good guys to chose from. Others you may be hard up to get anyone to step up, especially someone who will be active and do some work.
Start putting term limits on Directors and pretty soon you will have few or none. Guys there are just not that many trappers in Iowa who think like we do.
If a Director is objectionable to you find ways to get him out of there.
How many of you would pass the first quality of a good Director? I would consider that being putting the majority of your members interests above your own. If you were a Director, and a majority of your members were opposed to pre staking, would you serve them or yourselves?
I'm not sure I could put my personal feelings aside.
|
|