I am the commish... (1 Viewer)

[FunkyPlutos]

This question has come up about the rules in our dynasty league (6th year).

We want to change a couple rules and the bylaws read as follows:

1.6: Any vote of the teams needs the SDFFL's owners to vote. Each team receives 1 vote and 10 out of 14 owners (2/3) must approve the action for it to be approved and become a bylaw.

We had a vote on some rules changes and 9 people voted and every single one voted for the rule change, but one of the owners is making a stink saying that we need 10 votes to pass it. I know the rule says 10 of 14 must vote for the change, but it also has the 2/3 behind it...

The other owner says that people not voting counts as a no vote, while I contend that it just means indifference and we should go with 2/3 of the people who actually take the time to email me a Yes or No vote. (I am disgusted with people in our league for not participating)

What say ye??

 

[Chaz]

The intent of the rule is to have the vast majority of the league agree on a change. You seem to have that.

 

[Wu-banger]

as the commish you need to talk (not e-mail ) to all the owners to get their decisions. A blind poll or such is not the best way to envoke rule changes, you need to get feedback from all owners... if someone gives you an "I dont care" answer tell them that they still need to vote either way...and to think about it.

 

[Mpudi]

Send a league-wide email stating your extreme disappointment with the lack of voting on this issue. Shame them into submitting a vote, and have a re-vote due to lack of participation. I commish a 16-team league, and always seem to have 1-2 owners (various ones at various times) not respond to a league-wide vote. I'm assuming that's pretty much the norm.Our rules state: "While these rules try to cover all circumstances, situations will arise that will make it necessary and prudent to amend these rules. The commissioner will make decisions when necessary and expedient. But when it is necessary to amend/change these rules, a 2/3 majority of the voting franchises is required."Sure, we can change a rule with a 6 out of 9 vote. But, for example, if only 9 out of 16 teams respond, there are bigger issues than a simple rule change, IMHO.

 

[Mr. Anonymous]

Taken literally, it seems quite clear. You need 10 votes. And while 9/14 is not 2/3, it's 64.3%, there is no 10 votes OR 2/3, it's 10 votes (which is supposed to represent more than two thirds). So I agree that no vote is a "no vote," given the way this is written.Perhaps you should change this to 2/3 of teams voting, but that's not what it says now. Sadly, I would think you need 10 votes to do this.

 

[AB in DC]

Just get the other five owners to vote, one way or the other.

 

[Chaka]

Our league states that non-votes are considered votes in favor of the issue being voted upon.You do not have 10 votes (2/3) that is clear. I would solicit the non voters.

 

[Two Deep]

Is your first name RICK?

 

[Warhogs]

I also think you need the 10 votes.

 

[Browns Rule!]

This rule is contradicting in my opinion. If everyone doesn't have to vote, the rule is stating two things.1. You have to have 10 out of 14 teams agree.2. You have to have 2/3rds of the owners agree.In my opinion, these are two different things, if every owner doesn't have to vote.

 

[Dave Stauff]

Your rule is constructed poorly for the circumstances.Literally, you have to have 10 votes to pass a measure. There is no mention of "of those teams voting". You also have no stipulation as to how non-voting owners will have their votes counted - and already in this thread we've seen leagues that go both directions on this issue.My recommendation: Reword your rule to address these issues and have a "mandatory" vote by all owners on a couple variations - one that says non-votes will not be included in the 2/3 calculation, the other that says they'll be treated as "no" (or "yes" if you prefer) votes. Make entry into the league in 2006 contingent on the owner voting on this issue.Once this is done, resubmit your issues for another vote and move forward. In saying this, I understand that there could have been outcomes that have already occurred due to your prior process, but move forward anyway. If, as commissioner, you feel you can objectively support your decision to say that a 9-0 vote is 2/3, you should have nothing to worry about . .

 

[Tom Servo]

This question has come up about the rules in our dynasty league (6th year).

We want to change a couple rules and the bylaws read as follows:

1.6: Any vote of the teams needs the SDFFL's owners to vote. Each team receives 1 vote and 10 out of 14 owners (2/3) must approve the action for it to be approved and become a bylaw.

We had a vote on some rules changes and 9 people voted and every single one voted for the rule change, but one of the owners is making a stink saying that we need 10 votes to pass it. I know the rule says 10 of 14 must vote for the change, but it also has the 2/3 behind it...

The other owner says that people not voting counts as a no vote, while I contend that it just means indifference and we should go with 2/3 of the people who actually take the time to email me a Yes or No vote. (I am disgusted with people in our league for not participating)

What say ye??

Your own rules say "10 of 14 must approve" not 9. Ten out of 14 is greater than 67%, but not by much. It isn't so much contradictory as it is a clarification that 67% of 14 is considered to be 10 owners, not 9. It really doesn't matter if people don't vote, you'd still need 10 owners to approve under your present bylaws. Democracy in FFL is sometimes inconvenient in that some owners are not as passionate as others. You have options:

1) Change your bylaws to mandate passage of a measure by a simple majority of those who vote;

2) Make league votes a mandatory part of league ownership -- not necessarily a good one since you'll lose good owners that way;

3) Badger the non-voting owners -- always a hassle and it makes you feel like a nag.

I say you're screwed.

 

[GhostOfAnAlias]

Rules are rules, dude. Since when is 64.3% the same as 66.7%?

ETA: the fact that you're even trying to say it should be "2/3 of voting owners" is pretty sleazy, because the rule doesn't even come close to saying that.

 

[jetmonkey]

Disband the league. Change the rules as you see fit. Invite all the former owners to join your new league.