Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
If a member of the NUS (or other voting member) must be the person who actually submits rules change proposals, this would be a good place for the initial filtering out of stupid, poorly-worded, reactionary "I'm-teed-off-and-there-otta-be-a-rule" or other bad ideas to occur.
|
In an ideal world, that would be the case. In our real world, many (if not most) of us are required to be politically savvy enough to not refuse the request of a power broker.
All local level positions serve at the pleasure of the Commissioner; there are no defined terms of office for the positions we hold, and in most cases, the actual position held isn't even the title granted to make you a voting member. State and Association UIC's, Player Reps, JO Commissioners, At-Large Player Reps; we all serve at the (whim or) pleasure of the Commissioner. Regional UIC's, Regional JO Commissioners, and Regional Player Reps have defined terms (by Region rule, usually every year or two years(, but Commissioners rule the Regions, and making an enemy of a power broker leads to a short career. Most of us (those who have gotten a position) have worked many years to get where we are, and won't risk making that enemy.
The process sucks; I agree. But if I was leaned on by a power broker to submit a rule change I didn't particularly agree with, I would submit it anyway. I might be wrong about what is good and what is bad, and the committee process would, at least, get the suggestion a salute and a response. If it is bad, then I would hope the system would kill it. But, I would still have the support of the power broker for representing his idea.
If I ever reach a position where I don't need the support of anyone else, I might stop being so inclined. Not sure what position that would be, but if I get there, I will consider changing.