Ratification of Expense Reimbursement and Discount Policy

[Phokaioglaukos]

Betsi Lyle, a longstanding member of the Club, raised a concern at the September member meeting that the adoption by the Board of the Expense Reimbursement and Discount Policy at the September Board meeting may have been flawed because the Policy granted discounts for DE events to all members of the Board. The Club’s Conflict of Interest Policy requires a Board member with a conflict to abstain from voting to approve the conflicting transaction or arrangment. When the Board approved the Expense Reimbursement and Discount Policy no members abstained and all would be eligible to benefit from the DE discount. To address this concern, the Board ratified and confirmed the Expense Reimbursement and Discount Policy at its meeting last night by a unanimous vote of only those members of the Board who voluntarily gave up any discount for DE events as an Officer. All members of the Board who remain eligible for the Officer discount abstained. 

[catchacab]

Who voted for?
Who voted against?
Who abstained?

[Phokaioglaukos]

For the voting details I think you need to wait for the minutes to be published after the Board approves them at the November meeting.

[catchacab]

So the membership will not have this information prior to the election.

What happened to transparancy?

[Phokaioglaukos]

Does it really matter much? All the disinterested directors voted yes. Everyone else abstained. I can tell you I voted yes, and maybe others will volunteer that too, but when we convinced the Board to publish minutes of the meetings (for the first time this year) we required that the minutes be approved at the next meeting before publication. That seems reasonable to me.

I went the extra step in posting about the bylaw change and the discount policy because they were matters of special interest.

If there is some conclusion you would draw from the vote on this matter, state it and maybe others who voted will volunteer how they voted.

[LouZ]

Phokaioglaukos wrote:

All the disinterested directors voted yes. Everyone else abstained.

Since we don't know what the "discount" amounts to, it difficult for us to determine if the policy is fair. I do not object, if within reason. We still have this debate, both here and on Rennlist, about Instructor discounts!

More importantly - shall we assume that these "disinterested" directors will NEVER be granted a discount (otherwise, would it be a conflict of interest)?

[catchacab]

In our current electronic age of the Internet, e-mail and this forum, I believe it to be possible to have e-board meeting minutes distributed, amended and approved with in days of the meeting. Being informed if decisions made by the board over a month after they have been made is unacceptable.

I do applaud those who have made the minutes available online.

Chris,

Does your vote for this now make you inelligible for an instructor discount?

[Phokaioglaukos]

LouZ wrote:

Since we don't know what the "discount" amounts to, it difficult for us to determine if the policy is fair. I do not object, if within reason. We still have this debate, both here and on Rennlist, about Instructor discounts!

More importantly - shall we assume that these "disinterested" directors will NEVER be granted a discount (otherwise, would it be a conflict of interest)?

Why do you say that? The Policy is published on the web site. The Officer's discount is the same as the Instructor's discount, about 50% in most cases.

Yes, the people who gave up the Officer's discount will never get it. Of course they are all Instructors so they can get that discount, as long as it exists AND they actually instruct at a DE event.

[Phokaioglaukos]

catchacab wrote:

Chris,

Does your vote for this now make you inelligible for an instructor discount?

See above.

[catchacab]

Chris,

Could you post the reimbursement and discount policy that was voted on? Please include how each member voted (unofficially of course)