Via my discussions with dozens and dozens of GFA Members, it has become clear to me that few of us (previously, myself included) really understand how the currently sitting GFA board actually operates. I have not yet met a single GFA Member who is not absolutely stunned to learn that not any GFA Member who wants to be on the annual ballot, actually can be on the annual ballot - as any rational person would presume was the case. This logical presumption is very much NOT the case. Here's what really happens and why it simply has to undergo some very dramatic improvement:
First though, a verifiably truthful screenshot (not a biasedly edited misrepresentation, as mr fibiger via Mr. Banovic has dishonestly presented to the GFA Membership-at-large) of the relevant sections of our bylaws detailing the outrageous method which the currently sitting GFA board uses to incredibly incestuously self-replicate, followed by a layperson explanation of its meaning:
I know, it's boring legalese, so please let me explain the process in real English:
Officers ('president', Vice-President, Secretary & Treasurer) come up for "re-election" every year.
Directors (there are nine in total) come up for "re-election" in groups of three every three years. This year will be a bit different, owing to the fact that former Director (and attorney) Clifford Tsan abruptly resigned last year at the same time that certain legal proceedings (which the pandemic has caused the full fruition thereof to be delayed) were initiated - surely just another huge coincidence 🙄. GFA Member Jim Pierson was subsequently duly appointed to the board to replace Director Tsan, and will be required to also stand for "re-election" at this year's AGM.
The board's self-appointed nominating committee decides who the one "candidate" per position is whom they want to appear on the official ballot at the AGM, and the board rubber stamps the nominating committee's choices. Currently, to the best of my knowledge, the nominating committee consists exclusively of currently sitting GFA board members and none other than previous (actually legitimate, as near as I can tell) GFA President, Andie Cullen. Yup, really. Nothing like keepin' it in the family!!
The bylaws do create a provision for the nominating of candidates from the floor of the AGM, as was done last year and at a few other points in the history of the GFA.
But by rigging the system so grossly in their own favour as to not allow any GFA Voting Member in Good Standing to appear on the official ballot, the damage is clearly already done. By not appearing on the official GFA ballot, a floor-nominated candidate is instantly saddled with the extra burden of having to overcome the intentional creation of an aura of illegitimacy, brought on by the board's refusal to include their name on the official ballot. If this other Member was any good, surely our magnanimous currently sitting board would have included them on the official ballot, right....? These other Members are not on the official ballot, so surely there is something deeply "wrong" with them, right....?
This perverted system is grossly undemocratic, stifling of nearly any innovation, flatly wrong and simply must change. ANY GFA Voting Member in Good Standing who wishes to serve deserves to have their name included on the official ballot at the AGM - certainly not just the one "candidate" for each open seat which the wildly incestuous currently sitting board wants to be on the official ballot.