SEATTLE SOUNDERS FC ALLIANCE COUNCIL
June 7, 2016 – 7:00 PM – Sounders Conference Room
Present (13 of 20): Martin Buckley, Cameron Collins, Paul Cox, Craig Dillon, Eric Flatness, Bill Kaczaraba, Roberta King, Thom Kephart, Jeremy Monsivais, Jerry Neil, Stephanie Steiner, Brendan Vaughn, and Kristina Vaughn.
Via telephone (0): None
Absent (7): Samuel Chesneau, Michael Dollard, Angelica Germani, Karl Picard, Brian Prouty, Jeff Randle, and Daniel Roe.
Next meeting: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.
I. Call to order – Stephanie Steiner
II. Roll – Cameron Collins: 13 of 20 Present
III. Old Business
A. Constitution & Bylaws Updates. In an effort to complete all the required changes so that the Constitution can go out for an Alliance-Wide vote at the same time as the scarf vote, the Council is tackling the remaining Article updates.
→ Article 3: Cleaned up the language plus updated MLS to “The League” so that the Constitution would still apply even if the MLS becomes a new league. Second reading. Passes Unanimously.
→ Article 7: Takes all references using language of the business world and updates to proper language for the council and correcting grammar. Second reading.
Proposed Amendments: 7.4.2 – Strike sentence referencing one year.
7.5 – New language proposed to say: “The Term for an Executive Committee Member shall be from election until a new executive committee is elected at the beginning of the next alliance council business year, unless a member dies, resigns, or is removed from office.”
The Amendments are seconded. Pass unanimously.
Article 7 passes unanimously as amended.
→ Article 6: Clarified language for each of the officer positions.
Discussion ensued concerning whether we should be referencing “Alliance money” or “Alliance Council money” in the provisions relating to the treasurer. To whom does the money, if it were to exist, belong?
Proposed Amendment to 6.5: Change reference to “Alliance Council” to “Alliance.” Seconded. Passes Unanimously.
Article 6 passes unanimously as amended.
→ Article 5: Update to language in 5.1 Council Eligibility and 5.3 Business Meetings. Aligns the Council business year to be the same as the Club’s year, with the first meeting of the year taking place in December. Second reading.
Proposed Amendment to 5.1: Add “Alliance Council” prior to the words code of conduct to make clear that this would be an internal code of conduct and was not referencing the league’s code of conduct. Seconded. Passes unanimously.
Proposed Amendment to 5.3: Change the language that reads “scheduled in December” to “held in December.” Seconded. Passes Unanimously.
Article 5 passes unanimously as amended.
→ Article 4 & Bylaw 11: Updates language in 4.1 Alliance Eligibility and creates a bylaw 11 so as to allow the council to amend language relating to Alliance membership.
Proposed Amendment to 4.1: update the language of “season ticket package” to “multi-match ticket package.” Seconded. Passes unanimously with one member out of the room.
Article 4 passes unanimously as amended, with one member out of the room. Bylaw 11 passes unanimously with one member out of the room.
→ Bylaw 8: Replaces mistake in language referencing the “Executive Council” with proper language referencing “Executive Committee.”
Proposed Amendment: Change language stating that each committee “shall present” at each Council meeting to “may present.” Seconded. Passes unanimously.
Bylaw 8 passes unanimously as amended.
→ Bylaw 10: New bylaw giving the Council President the ability to call special meetinfs and to cancel or reschedule meetings when necessary.
Discussion occurred on whether notice should be required for a meeting to be call. Discussion on whether we need to do this so we can reschedule the July meeting, as it falls on a match day.
Proposed Amendment: Add a 3-day notice requirement before a special meeting can be called. Amendment withdrawn.
Motion to table this discussion until the next Council meeting. Seconded. Fails by a 5-6 vote.
Council looks to the Constitutional Article relating to meetings. We currently have the ability to change meetings by a council vote.
Proposal to table this discussion until the next Council meeting. Seconded. Passes 10-1.
→ Bylaw 9: Eliminated words and updated language for clarity
Proposed Amendment: Strike 9.1.1 because it is repetitive and the language exists elsewhere. Seconded. Passes 8-0 with 3 abstentions.
Proposed Amendment: Proposal to change the language such that eligibility will be stated in the positive, rather than discussing the negative. New language would read, “All Council Members, except those who have missed fifty percent (50%) or more of the preceding meetings of that council year (by the Members’ fourth eligible meeting or later) or who have missed the previous three (3) meetings consecutively, are eligible to attend meetings with owners.” Seconded. Passes 10-0 with one abstention.
Proposed Amendment: Proposal to streamline the language in 9.2.3, as it is covered elsewhere, by striking “Meetings with Ownership/Senior Management &” from the title and “attend meetings with ownership and/or senior management, or” from the body of the section. Seconded. Passes 10-0 with one abstention.
Proposed Amendment: Proposal to move the language of 9.1.4 to 9.1, then removing section 9.1.4. Seconded. Passes 10-0 with one abstention.
Bylaw 9 passes unanimously as amended with one abstention.
Motion to table old business and move on to new business due to time constraints. The time was already 9pm and there was new business to discuss. Seconded. Passes 10-1.
IV. New Business
A. Supporter Liaison Officer Resolution from Paul Cox
Paul Cox put forth a resolution calling for the Sounders to hire a Supporter Liaison Officer to speak on behalf of the fans in the Front Office. Now that the club is separate from the Seahawks, there is nobody talking to the fans in advance to see what the fan response will be. The people in the Front Office are so busy. The way big clubs handle this is that they have a liaison officer for the fans. It is written in to the documents as recommended in UEFA.
How many MLS teams have this? Zero.
How many Premier League clubs have one? Almost all of them. Each club is encouraged to have one, but it is not necessarily enforced by UEFA.
What’s the difference on what we have with the Sounders currently, where multiple people are responsive, and having one person do it? In Europe, they have realized the way we are doing things in the USA currently doesn’t work. So they have moved towards this type of program.
Comments from members of the AC:
→ This is a cultural issue in this front office and it is up at the Bart level. Suggesting we create a separate role does not change the culture that Bart is implementing.
→ The club has said that the Alliance Council would have this role. If this exists, does this hurt the Council’s power? Should we be asserting this power for ourselves? If this position were to exist, could this position answer directly to the Council?
→ Should we call them to the carpet and use this power ourselves?
Motion to table further discussion until the next meeting. Seconded. Passes Unanimously.
B. Moving the July Council Meeting
Our July meeting falls upon the friendly date. Should we reschedule to July 12 or July 19? July 12 passes unanimously.
Motion to adjourn because we are twenty-five minutes over time proposed, is seconded, and passes.