Joe, I think something not mentioned is that the same group running the organization now, with checks and balances MAY repeat MAY do a better job. There would be an incentive to listen to complaints and suggestions if they know their jobs and salaries depended on the "membership" voting on raises, bonuses, and continued employment............
I agree with Mel's general feelings on this.
Many are convinced that having the racers have signficant input to the operation of the NHRA would be a disaster, but that would only be the case if it was done stupidly.
I agree that having a bunch of racers argue about every decision would be a nightmare, but nobody sets up a large organization that way.
The way the NHRA was set up in the original incorporation papers was pretty reasonable. The board of directors did totally control the organization, as is the case now.
But there was a huge difference. The board members were subject to regular elections by the members, which from memory I think was every 3 years.
With this structure the board members are empowered with a reasonable time period to set directions and make some effective decisions for the organization, but on the flip side if they end up doing a poor job over that 3 year period they can be booted out via a member vote.
I think that could work reasonably well.
The issue of who could actually have voting rights is complicated though.
With the current 501(c)6 business league designation, only individuals who are operating legitmate business activities are allowed to be full members with voting rights. Others could be allowed to be affiliate members, but not with those voting rights.
This is all assuming that the NHRA gets forced to be in compliance with their business league designation, which I realize is a long distance from how they are operating now. I guess we'll see how seriously the IRS takes these compliance rules.