Another Thankless Task at QCYC

Well, that was embarrasing. At the general meeting on June 25, we really put on a disappointing show. I was seated near some newer members, and couldn't help noticing them frowning and rolling their eyeballs as we broke out into a  barely civil snot fight over moorage rules. I wonder why any of that was necessary?

In my opinion, there ought to be three overriding principles that would resolve most issues.

1. Any actions by an officer or committee chair must be in compliance with the rules or bylaws. The rules and the bylaws empower the officers and committee chairs, but at the same time the rules and the bylaws also restrict their power and authority.

2. Once established, the rules need to apply equally to everybody. There shouldn't be exceptions made for officers or life members, and "seniority" shouldn't excuse any member from compliance with the rules unless such exceptions are written into the rule. We all need to remember that when it comes to interpretation of the rules, interpretations by previous boards don't necessarily bind current boards. Circumstances and situations change. The bridge and the board need to be able to respond within the letter and spirit of the rules and bylaws. Something the board decided to "let slide" in 1988 may need to be enforced 26 years later.

3. If and when a rule creates situations that are unfair or inequitable, it makes sense to evaluate the rule and ensure that it is producing some benefit to the club. A bad rule shouldn't be kept in place simply because it's currently "the rule", but until the rule is repealed or changed by the board or a bylaw is changed by a supermajority of the members, the officers of the club have no choice except to abide by the rules. Hard feelings result when the board or bridge is willing to turn a blind eye to some issues, but not others. The party subject to enforcement when the board or bridge applies the rules very naturally feels singled out for persecution when and if it is commonly known that the board and bridge routinely ignore other rules.

Maybe the only thing more annoying that somebody enforcing the rules is when the rules are enforced selectively and certain members are simply presumed to be "excused" from compliance. Again, one rule for everybody, one level of enforcement for all members unless especially privileged by the same rules, and a willingness to scrap rules that prove unfair or inquitable.

Bringing me 'round to the title of this entry.

"Moorage Chairman" has to be one of the most thankless tasks at QCYC. Our current moorage chair is doing the only thing he can really do- following the rules. If he irritates some members because he is unwilling to bend the rules, he's probably doing a better job than if he constantly made exceptions based on factors other than those specified in writing.

Our committee chairs should be using club rules as a guideline for doing their jobs. If the rules aren't serving the members well, then scrap or change the rules. The rules are supposed to help the club function, not enslave the membership. However, until the rules are changed we need to support, rather than criticize, the people who take on thankless tasks like "Moorage Chairman".