Vote To Ratify Alliance Constitution and Sounders Charter Underway
by Dave Clark on Nov 28, 2011 4:50 PM PST
in Democracy in Sports
Email
PrintFrom the earliest moments of the young MLS Seattle Sounders FC franchise the team has spoken of "democracy in sports." The word DEMOCRACY has a power to it. It mobilizes men and women to do things that are previously unheard of. In politics it rears its head often, sometimes to surprising results. In sports it is uncommon. Real Madrid and Barcelona are trotted out as examples of what it can be with their votes on who runs the team and potential presidents campaigning by championing big budget transfers.
So when Drew Carey proposed that the Sounders have a modicum democracy I was very excited. In the early steps I ran for the Alliance Council, now twice elected to a position and the acting Vice-President. I'm only the acting veep because up until now the operating structure has been very loose. We're asking for your help in changing that.
Starting today and ending in barely under two weeks the Council and team are asking for people to vote to ratify the Constitution and Charter so our next steps along this democratic journey are done in support of the members of the club. While these documents are not perfect, and they certainly aren't Barcelona-esque, they are a great step.
Preamble
We, the united fans and supporters of the Seattle Sounders Football Club, are dedicated to protecting, upholding, and furthering the interests of the greater Sounders community. For this purpose, we join together to create this Alliance, where we shall find strength in our common purpose: the success of the Seattle Sounders FC on the field and in the community.
There will be a lot of questions about the documentation, about the process and our next steps. Some I can answer as my own opinion. Others I will have to go back to the Council as a whole rather than speaking off the cuff, because no one speaks for the full Council. Our officers are organizational only.
Below is the press release. Feel free to ask questions. I am firmly endorsing a yes vote if you have one.
Sounders FC Invite Ticket Holders to Approve Membership Constitution and Charter
Alliance Council drafts statutes to bring 'Democracy in Sports' to life
RENTON, Wash. - The Seattle Sounders FC and Alliance Council, comprised of Sounders FC member representatives, have approved a constitution and charter and now invite all season-ticket holders and Alliance members to submit a vote to approve. The documents and voting information are available at www.SoundersFC.com/Alliance.
The online voting will begin on Monday, November 28 at 3 p.m. (PT) and conclude on Monday, December 12 at 11:59 p.m. (PT). Similar to previous votes, there is one vote per season-ticket account.
The charter and constitution will be ratified if approved by at least a two-thirds majority of all legal votes cast by Alliance members.
The Alliance Council and representatives from the front office recognized the need for a governing document that outlines the rights, responsibilities and powers of the fans, the organization, the community, and the relationships between one another. The Alliance Council drafted the documentation which has been approved by the organization.
Highlights from the Sounders FC Alliance Constitution include:
* An annual business meeting for the Alliance to provide feedback to the club;
* Opportunity to commend or critique Club through member resolutions;
* Recognition of Supporters Groups as unique partner in the club's success;
* Greater transparency in Alliance Council activities;
* Bylaws that govern Alliance operations.
Highlights from the Sounders FC Alliance Charter include:
* The right to decide on the retention of the Club's General Manager via an Alliance-wide vote as scheduled by the Club, but not sooner than every four years;
* The right to decide, via methods determined by the Alliance, two of the Club's charitable partners annually;
* The right to decide, via methods determined by the Alliance, matters regarding game-day experience;
* The right to decide other matters that primarily affect the fans' and supporters' game-day experience.
Membership in the Alliance is complimentary for season ticket holders, and non-season ticket holders can join the association for an annual fee of $125. Members receive voting privileges, a pin for years of membership, a membership card, discount at the team shop, information on matters relating to the association and the team, and an invitation to the annual meeting and season review highlight film premier.
For information on Sounders FC Members Association and Sounders FC season tickets please visit
Thank you for your patience, 2012 will be even greater than 2009-2011 have been.
39 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Transparency
is always good. No matter how mundane, people will always seen dark motives for closed doors. The more you can do to let people see what’s going on, the better. Now I’m off to my City Council meeting to sell out the people to corporate interests in secrecy. Mwahahaha.
Biggest flaw I see
Is that still only one vote per season ticket holder account. Rather than the number of votes corresponding to the number of seats. My buddy and I have tickets together, under his name, so we only get one vote.
I imagine this is a technology hurdle more than anything – but I would hope that this would be one of the first items that the Alliance Council would undertake to clearly state the position that voting should be by persons and not “by household” as it is today.
The Constitution actually changes that
The current system is 1 vote per account. It will be changed upon ratification.
For a non-sports analog look to any time voting rights expand. This is always done when current voters allow new voters.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Wait, you mean I could've been getting a discount at the team shop this whole time?
I’ve been missing out.
"Recognition of Supporters Groups..."
To be clear everyone agrees that Bylaw 7’s withdrawal of recognition of a supporter group clause is consistent with Article 6 paragraph 2 even without the consent of the of the affected supporter group(s)?.
I think the plain language suggests that it is consistent (even w/o consent) but because the affirmative right of supporters groups is an Article rather than bylaw I figured I’d ask if that was the understanding. It seems like it might be particularly sticky where decertifying a supporter group would infringe upon the activities of another supporter group (not undergoing decertification) within their designated section(s) – something I could certainly imagine happening.
Can you re-phrase the question?
I’m a bit confused at this point. And considering that this is one of the more delicate areas of the set of documents I don’t want to tread in areas I don’t understand.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Will do, In class - I apologize for the initial lack of clarity/punctuation.
Article 6 Paragraph 2 says that the Alliance can’t infringe on the activities of supporter groups within their sections without their consent.
Bylaw 7 says that the Council can withdraw recognition of a supporter group with a 2/3 majority vote.
First Question: Does the withdrawal of recognition of a supporter group pursuant to Bylaw 7 count as an Alliance action for the purposes of Article 6?
Second Question: If such a withdrawal of recognition does count as an Alliance action does it require the consent of effected supporter groups because it counts as an infringement of the group’s activities in a designated section? Or is it not considered such an infringement?
Third question: Must supporter groups consent to the withdrawal of recognition of another supporter group if such a withdrawal will infringe on their activities within a designated section?
Hope that’s a little clearer.
Questions encouraged!
Hey… I can tell you the intent and understanding that I had, at least, when we passed this. Also, when I drafted it. :)
1) Withdrawal of recognition (under the bylaw) doesn’t count as an infringement in Article 6. The intent is that any SG big enough to get Alliance recognition will (hopefully) do so, and then their right to do their own thing within their section is protected.
If an SG chooses to not get that official recognition, they’re on their own in regards to what they can and cannot do in their section.
So, to use a slightly ridiculous example… say ECS decides next year that they aren’t going to sing- they’re all going to bring vuvuzelas and blow them all match long. And a new SG in section 132, down the west sideline, thinks that’s a great idea and does the same thing.
The Alliance passes a resolution banning vuvuzelas, because, you know, they’re awful.
This resolution would NOT apply to ECS, because ECS is a recognized SG, but it WOULD apply to the unofficial, unrecognized group in section 132.
Later, ECS’s recognition is revoked by the Alliance Council. NOW the resolution applies to them as well, and they have to go back to singing.
Does that make sense?
2) Nope, the Alliance’s actions on the SG are up to the Alliance.
To be frank, the reason for the 2/3 requirement is that it’s got to be a pretty heinous thing (all vuvuzelas, or racist behavior, or something like that) for an SG to get revoked. That’s the intent, anyway.
3) Recognition of one given SG don’t affect other SGs. So if ECS loses its recognition for the vuvuzelas, it doesn’t affect GFC, who are just a section or two over.
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the language around supporter groups. The intent is pretty simple- they can keep doing their thing, and the Alliance isn’t going to try and legislate what they do.
The recognition part is just to try and keep things a bit simpler and make it so that to get the rights of an SG, any given group of folks has to be at least HALFWAY serious about being an SG; you can’t just form up several of your buddies and call yourselves a “supporter group” and expect to get early entry to set up tifo, or bring in drums, or get tickets to the away matches, or whatever.
We aimed to set the requirements to be recognized at a level that would be hard enough that there has to be some work and dedication to supporting the Club, but low enough that it’s not impossible for new groups to form.
And we tried (hard!) to balance the needs/desires of the fan base overall with the same things of the SGs.
by Blue Eyed Buddhist on Nov 28, 2011 7:39 PM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Awesome response.
Kinda what i figured was meant by the language, just wanted to confirm. Looks like a fantastic start to be going forward with and i’ll lobby my season ticket holder to vote.
Two questions i have in regards to the constitution's bylaws.
Q1) What defines a “section”? This doesn’t effect most of the stadium but Are the south end sections divided into upper and lower sections?
While I no major problems with our supporters groups which mostly reside in the lower section of bowl, I would hate to see them impose their will on uppers sections.
P1) What about a supports groups like Furia Imortal, which do not require membership? Are they going to be force to start charging members?
Currently the upper section above the ECS is not a supporters section
Charging for membership is not a requirement. Finding 25 people willing to admit they are a member of the group is.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I realize this, I'm wondering if they have the right to annex the section.
not according to how the constitution is worded on the website…
Therefore, for formal recognition as a supporter group, groups must meet the following standards:
At least 25 identified, paid members
Identified group leadership who are responsible for coordination and can speak on behalf of the group
Organized participation as a group in activities like songs, chants, tifo, etc.
Established history of conducting supporter group activities for the Sounders
Have registered articles of incorporation with their local state
Ugh, looks like I lost a debate and forgot
The good news is that is in a bylaw, which can be more easily ammended. I know of no reason why there should be a paid requirement there.
But having a list of members is important, as you can’t police a group to which there is no membership.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Completely agree in both regards.
I’ll have to make a run at getting on the council next year to support you in this. I would also like to see some bylaws added to protect the rights of non-SG supports (within reason), but this is a fine start and has my vote as long as they can’t force the conversion of non-SG sections into SG sections.
the clarity needed might be that the 25 must be members of the Alliance
I’ll see what my notes from that meeting said.
Founders INTENT!
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
My recollection is
…that it’s not 25 Alliance members, but 25 paid members of the supporter group itself.
by Blue Eyed Buddhist on Nov 29, 2011 6:30 PM PST up reply actions
Can you put me down for another topic in Feb?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
A very positive step
Good for you folks and your work on this!
I do have questions regarding a couple of items:
- The right to decide, via methods determined by the Alliance, matters regarding game-day experience;
- The right to decide other matters that primarily affect the fans’ and supporters’ game-day experience.
What is the difference between these two?
Also, I would assume these were not intended to include a say about the on the field product (beyond voting on the GM’s performance), though I could see others assuming differently. Is my assumption correct?
by PeterJH on Nov 28, 2011 8:44 PM PST via mobile reply actions
The bullet points overly condensed it would seem
Your assumption is correct.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Vote No
For what is being promoted as democracy in sports; these sections are completely against the democratic belief of balance of power giving the Alliance all power over all things related to game-day experience and I don’t think that should be allowed. This runs the risk of having a small but powerful group control the vote and the game day experience of all others. I could support a balance of power giving one vote to the Alliance, one vote to the club management, and one vote to the players; but not giving the right to just one side of the equation. The game-day experience effects all three and all three should have an equal voice.
You oppose the Constitution because the players don't have say in gameday experience?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I oppose this section
because it does not give equal voice to the three club entities that are effected most by the game-day experience. The fans need a voice, the club management needs a voice, and the players need a voice but this as stated gives the Alliance all the power over the game day experience. I udnerstand that the fans want to enjoy themselves, support the players and don’t want artificial interference, the club wants to make money and be successful on and off the field, and when these two entities are in conflict it’s the players who have a stake in both which should be the deciding factor and therfore should have a vote.
A no vote is a vote against the entire document
forcing everyone to start over
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
I can't vote in favor
of a constitution that in my opinion has flaws that put it at odds with a democracy it claims to create; but I am sure there are many who would prefer this version of democracy because it puts sole power in the hands of a few. Seen this before somewhere.
If you have examples of where players make gameday atmosphere decisions
or where it was ever stated that the Sounders Democracy in Sports was to include players in any vote (they have not participated yet) please let me know.
And by “power in the hands of the few” you are talking about 32,000+ season ticket holders vs 30 players. Calling the few the fans is an odd choice of language.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Does this include advertising?
If so, is the Alliance expecting advertisements (or new ad mediums) to be run through them before being sold?
by PeterJH on Nov 29, 2011 12:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
advertisements are clearly a business endeavor
something over which the Alliance and Council have extraordinarily limited influence. The Club actually holds all rights to business decisions, but if 99% of fans objected to a particular ad I’m betting they’d change it.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
thanks Dave
I’m going to head over to the site and read a bit more before I ask more questions.
I thought we were creating something new and better?
If this is a true democracy why are we not including players as members? They have a huge stake in these decisions and yet they are left out.
Please don’t play the 32,000 members as all having equal influence, we can already see a small number of supporter group leaders and media members with a huge influence on the direction of the Alliance and this document. We as members need to insure that desisions are made for the good of the entire Sounder community and not just a few with power, and one way to do that is to require checks and balances be written into the constitution just like our forefathers did.
I’m not suggesting anything untoward has taken place but we need to make sure that there is not the oppurtunity for it in the future.
I am the only "media" member on the Council
And have struggled wearing multiple hats on several occaissions. Currently Supporter Groups make up 60% of the Council, with 2/3 of that being ECS. Unaffiliated fans make up 40%.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
What exactly is your complaint other than "a few people have too much power"?
What exactly do you think will so drasticly change with this charter?
If you were on the council, what would you drive to change?
When saying “We as members need to insure that desisions are made for the good of the entire Sounder community”, do you think the folks on the council don’t have a pretty good gauge of what the community is saying?
by soundersfcfanboy on Nov 29, 2011 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
The Sounders website has the WRONG VERSION of the Constitution up.
Just a heads up, the SSFC website posted an older version of the constitution and not the final version.
This means the final version needs to be put up and a completely new vote needs to be started as well as making EVERYONE aware what happened so those who already voted can read it and vote again rather than thinking they already voted.
We're working on a solution
and you should expect one ASAP this morning
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
The correct version is now loaded
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Great work.
This is groundbreaking stuff, and when ratified, deserves a lot of attention from major sports media. I hope it gets it.
On a different note, each of the Council Members responsible for drafting this constitution should be required to dress up as his/her favorite founding father at a match next season.
REVOTE UP!
I was just able to recast my ballot…so if you voted before, get back in there and do it again!
If you haven’t yet voted, take heart in knowing the error has been corrected, and the tally reset ;)
by dosafyre on Nov 29, 2011 7:25 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Sounder At Heart
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
