I think the NAFA delegate voting system is due for some rethinking. I think I know why the delegate voting system was developed the way it was and if someone knows differently please let me know. It was developed so that the clubs that participate at NAFA sanctioned events are the ones that should have a vote. This sounds logical to me. Why would you want clubs to have a vote if they are not participating in the sport at NAFA sanctioned events? However, why are all the delegate votes given to the club owner?
NAFA Rulebook, Chapter 4 - Delegate Votes
(b) All delegates shall be assigned to the club owner.
The Participants
Why are the participants left out of the voting process? After all, the participants are the ones that make Flyball happen. Flyball is a team sport so why don’t the team members get a vote. The club owner can choose to divvy up the votes or not. Why should they have all the power? Without the “teammates”, there would be no team.
NAFA Rulebook, Article VII, Section 2. Delegates
The Board of Directors may designate delegates with special interest in flyball. Each Board member will individually receive a delegate vote over and above any delegate votes otherwise earned. Each Regional Director will individually receive a delegate vote over and above any delegate votes otherwise earned. All approved judges and supervising judges will individually receive a delegate vote in addition to any other delegate votes otherwise earned. Clubs will be notified of the number of delegates earned during the preceding fiscal year.
It doesn’t seem fair that the participant should be left out of the process. I think each dog entered in a NAFA sanctioned event should be given 1 delegate vote per year. Thus, if you have 5 dogs and 4 of them participated in NAFA sanctioned events during the NAFA fiscal year, the owner of the dog should receive 4 delegate votes. This sounds reasonable to me.
What do you think?
Larry
Related Post:
19 comments ↓
Larry,
I have always thought this. I even thought it should go so far as to how many competitive dogs you have. Let’s face it, the more dogs you run, the more money you are generating for NAFA. I think clubs should get 1 vote, and clubs that host tournaments get more votes based on how may tourneys they hold(thus the incentive to host more..), and participants get theirs as well.
Jackie
I dug up the book and read the whole section. Assignment of delegate votes is very weighted and makes sense to a degree. There should be some recognition for committing the resources necessary to attend many tournaments, host tournaments, and to judge tournaments. RD’s earn the delegate vote, also.
Here’s the rub, for me: A given club can earn a maximum of eight delegate votes. But I do not see a maximum an individual can be awarded under the current system.
A club owner entering 30 or more teams in a year (6 votes), that hosts two tournaments (2 votes), that is an approved or supervising judge (1 vote), and serves on the Board (1 vote) is issued ten delegate votes? Can RD’s serve on the Board? I did not look it up. But Board Members? These are the folk that approve what goes on the ballot, and how it is worded. The BoD shapes the issue and then gets to vote on it with more weight than any one else? A Board member with ten votes outweighs four to five clubs, each with one team, that each make it to less than six tournaments in a given year. How does this appear to those members in low flyball density regions, struggling to get/keep a flyball club going? When issues like pickup teams have a _big_ impact on these teams the most? I hope I mis-read the rules.
Issuing ballots to individuals sounds very expensive. How many members have current contact info in the NAFA database? Should this interface be modernized? Based on revenues as stated in the blog entry “NOTA”, NAFA may well not have the resources to implement a more equitable and accurate voting system. Rendering whether they need one moot.
I agree that the determination of delegates should be more equitable. I disagree that it should be tied to the dogs that compete. Each owner/handler should be considered a member, equal to all other members. A member with a flyball kennel should not outweigh the opinion of the member that competes with one dog.
I realize I am not offering alternatives: this is but a long winded agreement to the point Larry makes.
Maybe each member active in NAFA (competing) for three consecutive years receives one delegate vote. Leave the current judge/RD vote in place. Strike club participation, Board membership votes. Add TD vote.
“I think clubs should get 1 vote, and clubs that host tournaments get more votes based on how may tourneys they hold(thus the incentive to host more..)”
Hosting Clubs already DO get one delegate vote for each event that they host. They can earn up to 6 votes by racing and no more than 8 votes total. So, if a club earns 6 votes by racing, they could host two events and earn 2 more delegate votes. OR, if they only earn 5 votes by racing, they could host three events and earn three delegate votes that way. So, if your team only earned one delegate vote by racing (# of team entries) they could host 7 events and still earn the maximum number (8) of delegate votes.
And, the reason that the delegate votes are sent to the Team/Club “Owner” is based on NAFA history. Clubs used to send in paperwork every year designating “who” their delegates were. They were actual named individuals with mailing addresses, etc. What was happening was that these individuals were not updating their contact information with NAFA and thus, too many Clubs were losing their “votes” because the ballots were being returned by the US Post Office as being “undeliverable”. The NAFA Board decided (5 or more years? ago) that it was easier to keep track of Team/Club owners than it was all the individual delegates.
Personally, I thought it was a shame that individual delegates didn’t think it was important enough to update NAFA when they moved but, at least this way, a Club/Team still gets a voice in the NAFA organization instead’ve losing out because of a participant’s oversight.
I think the NAFA Board would give serious thought on how to include more individual participants if someone could present a proposal that would rectify the problem of delegates not updating their contact information.
“Each owner/handler should be considered a member, equal to all other members. A member with a flyball kennel should not outweigh the opinion of the member that competes with one dog.”
Respectfully, I disagree.
Who sends more money to NAFA? The person who competes with only one dog? Or someone like myself who owns 4 dogs and is eligible to compete with all of them? (1 is still in training but, plays part time and warms up only, part time. 2 run very solid and 1 is considered “retired” but, could play/backup, etc.)
Chris, I know they(clubs) receive votes for hosting, I was trying to state, I thought more votes should be “awarded” for hosting than for attending. Let’s say a max of 8 - 2 for attending 6 or more tourneys, and the rest earned for hosting…or something along those lines.
My point exactly Chris. I am “invested” in flyball. I spend alot of time and money on training, travelling, entry fees etc. As a result, I am more inclined to be actively involved in the interest of flyball; getting involved in debates, discussion, etc.
My household spends well over $10,000 (I don’t really want to know the actual amount) yearly just on getting to/from tournaments and entry fees for our 12 plus dogs that currently play.
“Who sends more money to NAFA? The person who competes with only one dog? Or someone like myself who owns 4 dogs and is eligible to compete with all of them? ”
One of the reasons I like flyball is that there is no monetary incentive to play. (Except for the few “flyball dog kennels” and “flyball seminar trainers/clubs”.) I know individuals who contribute to the success of flyball at tournaments and within their community that do not compete with more than a dog or two. Why diminish their contribution(value)in terms of money sent to NAFA?
Why would it dimish the person with one dog, if a person with 7 or more active dogs get more delegate votes?
1-6 active dogs - 1 vote
7-12 - 2 votes
with a top of 3 votes per household, or something(I am just spitballing here)
This would not demand persons to get more dogs, but for the households that do compete with alot of dogs, they get a say in the direction of NAFA flyball.
The heart of my objection is a philosophical disagreement to weighting votes.
Not because I am a startup club and quite easily will not earn a delegate vote in this racing year.
But for this reason:
a weighted vote represents a “status quo” vote.
a weighted vote broadens the gap between have and have not.
a weighted vote quashes the new and braces the old.
a weighted vote is a good way to ensure that what started does not change substantially.
This can be a good thing, but relies on the wisdom of the leadership.
That is all I am trying to say.
I envy you the resources you have to commit to flyball. But should your vote outweigh twelve apartment dwellers (each with one dog) that none the less manage to compete in flyball for years?
(Remembering that the dogs themselves don’t care.)
I would say the average flyball household is 1-6 dogs…the above average is 6 or more. So the apartment dweller household of 1 would be majority.
If the cap is 3 per household(just using that number, even two would work), and I vote with my 3 one way, and the 12 apartment dwellers vote the same way, that is a 12 to 1 ratio. If a team is made of of 20 1 dog households and another team has 5 members 1 2 dog household(1 vote) and 2 6 plus household (4 votes), the team with more teammembers is clearly ahead.?
I think my position on alloting delegate votes to members in addition to clubs, is that more often than not, you have teammates that may be more politically active in the sport, than others, and sometimes even the captain.
From past results history, why are some results never turned in? Is it a Captain that just does not care? Loses them? Is not active in getting to know it’s choices? Would there be more turned in delegate votes if it was in the hands of participants?
I know of no “flyball dog kennels” or “flyball seminar trainers/clubs” that do any better than “break even” for their efforts. Money sent to NAFA represents my “investment” in this organization and, it is my “philosophical disagreement ” that makes me feel that a one dog household should not be able to cancel out my multiple dog involvement. No, the dogs don’t care but, they don’t play flyball unless I do.
Clubs are challenged by this disparity of “one dog” vs “multiple dogs” within their ranks all the time. But, NAFA was founded by 8 obedience clubs that represented 12 “teams”. The one club that was so big it could enter 4 teams of dogs all by itself was given more “weight” by the rest of the founding clubs because they felt this club had more “vested” in this sport. The big club didn’t ask for that kind of influence. It was the little clubs that chose to defer.
What your post tells me is that you do not trust the “wisdom of the leadership”. That may be deserved in your view but, it is not necessarily the view of the majority, weighted or not.
Apologies on my math, Jackie. Somewhere I lost track of the club vote you were counting ( I mentally tossed the club vote).
You make a very good point regarding the return of delegate votes that are issued. Shame on those that do not participate, denying their own club members the opportunity to be heard.
Funny how the 20% quoted in the post “NOTA” nearly mirrors presidential elections!
“I think the NAFA Board would give serious thought on how to include more individual participants if someone could present a proposal that would rectify the problem of delegates not updating their contact information.”
Each participant is part of a team so just send the ballots to the team just like the titles are sent. Just have the name of the participant on the each of ballots. Alternatively, most people have computers now so something could be worked out online. Participants could say whether their ballots should be sent to the team or not.
I think this is a minor detail and I’m sure something could be worked out if everyone got their head’s together. It could be an evolutionary thing where ballots are sent to the participants via the team with the knowledge that in the future it would be over the Internet.
For the record, I totally agree that those that compete should have a vote in the overall welfare of the organization. The problem I have is that with NAFA, if you do not have a NAFA height dog, you get no vote what so ever. When our club was formed, we had no acceptable height dog for NAFA. Because of NAFA’s measuring system, our closest height dog would require us to jump 13 inches. We, as a club, decided that wasn’t going to happen. Therefore, we are running in UFLi right now. We are very active in flyball, but, as we have no NAFA height dog we haven’t attended any NAFA tournaments so, we will not get ANY say in the NAFA election. Now, I agree that those that compete should have a voice, but we cannot state our opinions (specifically on the jump height issues) because we don’t compete in NAFA. It’s a catch twenty two. We will probably NEVER have any delegate votes for NAFA, but will play flyball quite competitively anyway. I think there should be a way that new clubs get at least one vote in the elections. They are required to run a year or more before they can have a single vote. The majority of the ballots aren’t even turned in, but my club won’t get any say, because we CAN’T play right now. That doesn’t seem to promote growth in a sport. One delegate vote won’t change much, but it would give new clubs a sense that they belong and have a small voice.
Sonya,
Where do you compete in flyball? If you are willing to enter a NAFA Open Class, I have a 9″ height dog that I would be happy to lend to your team.
If you do not compete close enough to be practical for me to travel to a tournament near to you, there is a message board that I created and maintain just for the purpose of hooking up teams with dogs for Open, Vets and performance. You can look up your preference for class and it is sorted by Region.
And, you may not a vote but, NAFA is owned by the public. You ALWAYS have a voice. If there is a comment you would like to make to the Board on any topic that is on or not on the agenda, write to the NAFA Board at flyball@flyball.org and it will be forwarded to the proper committee and or the Chairman of the Board who will put it on the agenda.
Open/Vets/Performance message board is:
http://www.freewebs.com/chrisvanwert/nafaflyball.htm
How does UFLI decide who gets votes - somehow its better I am sure.
If your club owner is not sharing the alloted votes… get a new owner that cares!!!
U-FLI is a private corporation, run by it’s owners. So, no votes other than the feedback given to the owners. I find it funny that this is brought up by the non-supporters of U-FLI - “I have no say” But, in fact, you have more say in U-FLI, cause if you are not happy with the product, U-FLI will not succeed. So, the owners are always looking at ways to make a better product. Kinda like USDAA, AKC and NADAC agility. There are no delegate votes for these organizations, but, they have to compete with each other, therefore, they have to keep up, and innovate to stay competitive.
Chris,
Thanks for the offer, but the height dog issue is just one of the reasons our team is not opting to play NAFA at the present time (who knows about the future). You are correct that I could send a concern or comment directly to the NAFA board, but, because they are elected, their primary concern is with the VOTING public, not the ones that may someday be able to affect the elections. I have written the board on occasion and, as I was VERY active in NAFA for over 8 years (a tournament a month), I had occasion to mention concerns directly to board members. I find they are more than willing to listen and take my concerns seriously. I am not sure, however, that anything can be changed.
Overall, our team is very active and fairly competitive. We train hard, enjoy playing flyball with our dogs and the friends we have met on the flyball circuit. We will continue to play. Our goal is to run fast, run clean, and have fun. I just wish NAFA had a system in place that allowed everyone who played flyball to vote. I guess that’s not fair, since we don’t contribute monetarily to NAFA right now, and, the way things look, probably won’t in the near future.
Russell brings up a valid point. If your team Captain is not ’sharing’ the votes or at least taking a team poll of how people want to vote, etc. then there’s a problem! Unfortunately, many teams are run as ‘Dictatorships’ and most team members (especially new members in say their first year of the sport) don’t have any idea voting exists, etc. *Been there in my early days of flyball!
For those of you that follows the sport regularly and know when voting time comes around - you should be asking your Captain how many votes the team earned for the year and how are they going to be submitted. You pay into the system the same as everyone else and should have a voice on how YOUR club (the club you pay dues & tourney fees into) votes on NAFA matters!
As for the system in general - I fear these isn’t an easy solution. I think there are still many questions that would need to be answered, such as who exactly gets votes? Everyone with a NAFA registered dog? What about people who have registered their dog and never played? Should you only get a vote if your dog actually acrued points for the year? Should it be determined by how many tournaments your dog ran in or got points in? What about people like myself who, for the good of the team and to allow green dogs to run, list a seasoned dog but often never run him because the green dogs and handlers are holding their own? Is it fair to deny that ‘dog’s’ vote because I as the owner chose not to run him to allow green dogs to run which in turn promotes the sport to new players? OK, a little far fetched… but you get where I am going.
As for votes based upon how many dogs you own - again, some of the same questions from above come up. My personal opinion is that the number of dogs you own shouldn’t be a factor. Those of us with multiple dogs made the conscious decision to add more dogs into our families. No one forced me to adopt 3 dogs… I made the decision on my own and I also made the conscious decision to play flyball with all 3 and if that means emptying my wallet after every tournament - so be it - it was my choice. I know several single dog owners who would like nothing more than to get another dog or two, or three, but they can’t due to restrictions beyond their control (ie: where they live, financial constraints, etc.). I don’t feel as though my vote should count any more than theirs just because I pay 3 tourney fees to their one because I made that choice. Again, JMO.
I agree the system needs to be revamped - it’s getting a suitable alternative that’s going to be the tough part.
Larry - Great topic!
Leave a Comment