That's why the USCF has a Bylaws Committee, of which I am a member, to deal
with technical matters such as merging a proposal like this into the rest
of the USCF structure.  The Blue Ribbon Committee should deal with the
substantive issues, in consultation with Bylaws to help make sure that
the final proposal covers all bases.

I assume that the Voting Membership as currently constituted would effectively
cease to exist, since there would be a new block of members with voting
rights.  (This would affect several sections of the Bylaws.)

This also raises the issue of what effort it should require to initiate a
recall election, since such a process would be significantly more expensive
with 30,000 voting members than with 450.  How to adequately educate that many
voters on the issues behind the recall is another interesting question.  

I think the BRC and Bylaws are both planning on studying this issue this
year.  I know in the case of Bylaws it was mentioned last year as something
we need to address, and I'm pretty sure I've had a casual conversation
with Steve Doyle (on BRC) in which I raised the recall issue with him as well.

I would prefer to see the Delegates continue to exist as a body, for several
reasons.

1.  It is unreasonable if not impossible to try to conduct a mass meeting
    of voting members to enact the budget, amend the bylaws, etc.  I am
    reminded of a meeting of the Nebraska State Chess Association, in which
    all members have voting privileges, including juniors.  The meeting was
    held at the State Scholastic Championship, and because nearly half of
    the members present were high school players or younger, they nearly
    succeeded in voting to abolish the Nebraska Invitational Championship.  
    It was something they had no interest in and weren't immediately
    affected by, so they almost killed it off.

    I would worry that a similarly non-representative mass meeting of the
    USCF Voting Membership with an open agenda might attempt similarly
    unwise actions, ones not in the best interest of the USCF or chess,
    even if it didn't involve them personally.

2.  The Delegates are the check and balance to the Policy Board, since the
    Board is subordinate to them.  I have no problem whatsoever with a larger
    group electing the PB, directly or indirectly, as long as there is
    some moderately small group (one small enough to meet once a year but with
    enough carryover membership to make sure that things don't have to be
    built from scratch each year) to serve as a reality check, something
    that several if not most PB's have needed.  The 75 to 100 Delegates
    usually present represent a lot of collective ideas and knowledge about
    the USCF, not always pulling in the same direction.  Unlike the PB, where
    all it takes is two or three extra votes to enact something, it takes a
    fairly solid argument (and often a lengthy one) to sway the Delegates.

    I can think of a number of ideas that were well on their way to passage
    when some Delegate got up and raised an issue that nobody else had
    considered adequately, after which the idea was either modified radically
    or killed off entirely.  The late George Cunningham was excellent at
    this, his down-home Maine mannerism, humor, and wisdom is sorely missed.
    I can think of a few motions that arose late in a meeting, after a
    large number of Delegates had left, that passed by a slim and contentious
    margin, only to be reversed or revised the following year when cooler
    heads prevailed.  (I'm omitting any particulars here to save some
    bandwidth and to keep this from turning into my memoirs of Delegates
    Meetings past.)
--
Mike Nolan, USCF Parliamentarian and Bylaws Committee Member