Buick PreWar Division Status Question

[MCHinson]

An earlier discusison asking about the status of the Pre War Division was removed by another moderator due to it being started by someone who had previously asked to have his membership in the forum deleted. I am a bit confused since I don't think that his asking to have his account deleted means that he is banned from participating in the forum in the future. I thought that there were some very good questions and answers in the previous discussion. I will now take this opportunity to do as MrEarl requested and be the guy who restarts the discussion. 

 

The  recently removed discussion made me aware that the BCA Board minutes from Denver had been posted to the BCA Website. I have now read those minutes. While waiting on those minutes, I have had many phone calls and emails regarding the actions of the BCA Board in Denver as well as what had happened in the Membership Meeting in Denver.

 

From reading the minutes of the board meeting, it appears that a majority of the BCA board voted to create a new Pre War Divison with Jack Gerstkemper in charge of this new division after Mr Gerstkemper admitted that he was "Not currently" a member of the Pre War Division.

 

While I admit that I have not been active in the Pre War Division previously, choosing the focus on the 36-38 Buick Club personally, I am appalled by this action by the BCA Board. I would encourage the current BCA Board members to reverse this error. I also would (and have by personal email communication) encourge the current BCA Board to reverse the ill advised effort to remove Terry Wiegand from the BCA.

 

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

I agree, Matthew. Wholeheartedly. 

 

  Ben

[1937-44]

 Matt I would like to thank you for starting a new thread bringing this back into the open. Not condemning the other moderator as he was acting on behalf of what he believed to be correct and proper. Admittedly I can see how this subject can raise ire and I am upset with the actions of the board as well. 

 I was going to provide a link to the BOD minutes of June 2018 but not sure if that would be allowed. I feel it is safe to say however they are available to be read on the BCA website under the Publications category.

 I feel a vote on the matter should have been postponed until all parties had ample time to prepare for the discussion and am disappointed the motion was acted on immediately. I share your hope that the board will resolve the matter with civility and fairness.

 

Carl.

[Mark Shaw]

     Mr. Gerstkemper made a surprise attack on me and made several untrue accusations at the board meeting in Denver.  He claimed that I was not the founding director of the PWD and that I did not publish the PWD email newsletter for over ten years.  Upon my return from the Denver meet, I sent a confidential email to all the BCA board members involved with attached documents proving this to be untrue.  I have not yet received a response from the board about my letter, but I am confident that the current board members, who are also PWD members, will make this fiasco an agenda item for the next BCA board meeting.

 

It is my opinion that several board members and BCA chief judges felt their authority to control meet parking was threatened because I cited the BCA SOP to force the board to allow all-together parking for the Denver meet.  So they conspired with Mr. Gerstkemper to remove me as director.  After many years of dismissed proposals the PWD all-together chronological parking arrangements in Denver were very successful.  Several of those who resisted this for years finally admitted how nicely it displayed the cars and did not affect the judging process.  Many felt it actually made judging easier with only one isle for all the prewar cars.  I also suggested that a poll of those who attended the Denver meet should be taken to determine if all-together parking should be continued at future meets.  But I have seen no attempt to take such a poll.

 

As far as I am concerned, only division members can choose a new division Director not the BCA board.  As mentioned previously, the whole process conducted by the board to make Mr. Gerstkemper interim director should be ruled inadmissible.  His petition was not read aloud, or checked for correctness and should not have been accepted or voted on in that meeting.  Mr. Gerstkemper also misrepresented himself as being a PWD member.  After he sold off all the prewar Buicks that he inherited from his parents, he called and advised me he was no longer the publicity chairman or PWD member because he no longer had any prewar Buicks.  I welcome any active PWD member who has planned & participated in previous PWD AfterTours in their own prewar Buick to take over as PWD Director, but Mr. Gerstkemper is not qualified.

 

 

[Brian_Heil]

Thank you Matt for re-engaging this important topic.

 

To our BOD: 

 

Forgive me, but you have made an error, both in your vote but more importantly in how you run a proper meeting.  When any important issue is brought forward in the form of a motion for the first time, including a new motion such as a long standing, Division Chairperson's character and fitness to Chair a Division, you need to thank those who made the motion, and after the discussion, TABLE it.  You then need to investigate the claims made and determine the facts.  In what was less than 10 minutes you took action with false information, from a select few, and then took a vote.  Would you like to be treated in this same manner?  I would not want to be a part of any important motion with such short sightedness, nor should we as a club.  The BCA is better than this and you need to correct your error.

 

You now have the substantiated facts that were not presented during the brief discussion. 

 

The question remains, will you do the correct thing and admit your error and share the correct information and then vote again?

[MrEarl]

24 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

I am a bit confused since I don't think that his asking to have his account deleted means that he is banned from participating in the forum in the future

 

Not sure why you are confused and are second guessing my recommendation to ban, as you participated in the discussion relative to the post that in the end got him banned after returning under an alias. Same MO he has used for years. I have no problem with him returning as a positive contributing member and have advised him of that numerous times,  but you know what antagonistic language that post contained.

 

32 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

I thought that there were some very good questions and answers in the previous discussion. 

 As I stated I too thought there was some good comments and regretted having to delete the good with the bad.

 

40 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

I will now take this opportunity to do as MrEarl requested and be the guy who restarts the discussion.  

  

 

Well when I asked that,  I certainly didn't think it would be a moderator who would want to delve into such a political and controversial discussion as this and then openly support one group or the other. Hellfire, I can't even like or dislike a post without receiving hate mail much less go so far as to publicly question the decisions of club boards and "encourage" reversal of voted upon actions. While I have had to remove quite a few controversial threads, I can't recall ever openly and publicly taking sides or being biased toward one group or the other. So I ask you Matt , is that good policy for a moderator?

 

Because of the hate filled emails and messages I continue to receive from PWD members totally misunderstanding my motives and attempts to moderate this forum fairly and without bias, and now with a fellow moderator taking such a strong stand for a particular group  which I don't think a moderator should ever intentionally do, I have to wonder why am I here and if this job is really worth it. I mean the pay sucks!!!   I no longer wish to be subjected to such and am having heart to hearts with my better half and other confidants about turning my moderating  duties over to someone stronger and able to handle the stresses.  I will also be asking the AACA Forum administrator, Peter Gariepy to look at this and though not his role, to possibly assist. 

 

Irregardless, considering that  the subject has been brought out and is active again I encourage comments and  I SINCERELY hope it will bring about objective and needed discussion about the recent actions of the BOD and anyone else involved and in the end be of help in bringing this subject to a close so the club can be fun and enjoyable like it use to be.

 

As this discussion is certainly of interest to the General Membership and in ALL fairness should be readily viewable by ALL,  I am moving it to the General Forum with a directing link.

 

[NC-car-guy]

Really guys? Can we all breathe and read our posts before posting? I respect many of you and the contributions you make to our hobby. I appreciate moderators keeping inflammatory topics and people in check. I like having one place where I can focus on the hobby and not politics,  bad news, and the normal internet crap.  So, In the long run  what percent of your lives does this really change?  This is a hobby club, not life altering for anyone. Why make enemies in a public forum?  Why doesn't everyone sleep on it and take it up with the board in a group email or conference call, or the next meeting.  I think it best that forum moderators govern the forum based on the rules, and keep the other stuff offline.  This is probably why club memberships are declining.... fights over stuff that won't matter when we're all dead and gone. Let's focus on making the hobby outlast us!  ??

 

[MCHinson]

44 minutes ago, MrEarl said:

 

Not sure why you are confused and are second guessing my recommendation to ban, as you participated in the discussion relative to the post that in the end got him banned after returning under an alias. Same MO he has used for years. I have no problem with him returning as a positive contributing member and have advised him of that numerous times,  but you know what antagonistic language that post contained.

 

 

 

Well when I asked that,  I certainly didn't think it would be a moderator who would want to delve into such a political and controversial discussion as this and then openly support one group or the other. Hellfire, I can't even like or dislike a post without receiving hate mail much less go so far as to publicly question the decisions of club boards and "encourage" reversal of voted upon actions. While I have had to remove quite a few controversial threads, I can't recall ever openly and publicly taking sides or being biased toward one group or the other. So I ask you Matt , is that good policy for a moderator?

 

 

MrEarl,

 

As moderators, we don't typically discuss moderation publicly, but since you brought it up, I can't seem to find any discussion about banning him in which I expressed any different opinion than the one that I expressed after your earlier comment on this subject.

 

While I am a moderator, I am also an active member (and officer)of the 36-38 Buick Club, a Division of the BCA. You have no idea the amount of input that I have received from my fellow BCA members in that Division on this subject. While I probably don't post as much as I used to, I still have the same rights to post my opinion on issues related to clubs that I am a member of. You also have those same rights. You don't give up your own rights when you take on moderation duties. 

 

I disagree with you seeing this as taking sides or being biased towards one group or the other. We are all individuals with our own view of things. I am supportive of both AACA and BCA, but that does not mean that I always agree with everything that the boards of the two clubs do. When I diagree with the direction of any club that I am a member of, I make the leadership aware of my opinion on the issue. I have had direct communication with all of the BCA board members on this issue in the past month or so. They all know exactly how I feel. I am not going to hide my opinions on the forum just because I am a moderator here. I hope to see the BCA Board correct what I see as some recent errors. If the majority of the members make their wishes known to the board, it will help the board do the right thing. They need member input to be able to do the best job for the club. I look forward to the days when we can all feel equally good about the direction of the club. Hopefully that will be very soon. 

[dship]

I happen to totally agree with Lamar in that each and every moderator should not engage in what can be perceived as bias opinions.  As I see it, a moderator's function is to oversee the ruckus, not get into the middle of it.

 

I also TOTALLY AGREE with the recent action of the BCA BOD!....Conduct unbecoming of an officer and/or member of the BCA.  Let's all get back to what is supposed to be a social gathering of BUICK enthusiasts, not a gaggle of political/back stabbing/name calling individuals.

 

My personal opinion...    

Edited August 7, 2018 by DShip (see edit history)

[1937-44]

 Like wndsofchng06  I'm sorry this issue is creating havoc for the moderators. I appreciate both Mr Earl and MCHinson and the time and effort they both contribute to the club and the forum. I'm sorry you both are getting flak on here and personally about this issue and others. Hopefully in the light of day after a good night's sleep you will both be able to resume your duties in the future with the same concern and dedication you both have demonstrated in the past.

 

Carl

[NC-car-guy]

 Also,  I vote that the three months of Buick club minutes I just read be submitted as a script for a new reality series.  Car clubs gone wild?  Cockamamy cars and cash?  If my local chapter ran like that I'd run..... away. 

[jscheib]

43 minutes ago, DShip said:

I happen to totally agree with Lamar in that each and every moderator should not engage in what can be perceived as bias opinions.  As I see it, a moderator's function is to oversee the ruckus, not get into the middle of it.

 

I also TOTALLY AGREE with the recent action of the BCA BOD!....Unbecoming of an officer and/or member of the BCA.  Let's all get back to what is supposed to be a social gathering of BUICK enthusiasts, not a gaggle of political/back stabbing/name calling individuals. 

 

My personal opinion...    

Dave,

Regarding the recent action by the BOD, do you mean the move to strip membership of a member of the BOD?  Or are you refering to the move on the PWD to much most of the folks on the PWD Forum and now this one was in order.  There are two separate problems going (or at least two).  Here we are concerned only with the handling of the existing PWD, verses creating a new more formal Division.  Just trying to clear the air.

 

John.

[JohnD1956]

There was a vote to re-organize the Pre War Division, not form a new one.  Re read the minutes. The Division was composed of a list of 400 members ,which is never culled.  It had no By laws, no formal or informal way to elect a leader, it had no structure.  When the leader left for two years no one took over. It had no newsletter and it only communicated with the folks who participated in this forum.

 

I think the prior BOD did the right thing.  

[MCHinson]

Actually, the motion was recorded in the minutes as a motion to form a new Pre-War Division.

 

From the minutes...

"Alan O: there is still a motion and second on the floor so we proceed on that. Are there any other discussions from the board? < none recorded> Alright, there being no further discussion, then I will call for a vote on the motion on the floor; to accept a petition by Jack Gerstkemper to form a new Pre War Division. I think for clarity we should go board member by board member. So let me first ask if there are any board members who abstain? Larry Di Barry, and Terry Weigand abstain, and Roberta. Are there any board members who vote No? < None recorded> So, Robert Safrit, how do you vote? Robert S: Yes. Alan O: Rick, how do you vote? Rick S: Yes Alan O: Brian? Brian Yes Alan O: John? John D: Yes Alan O: then we have 4 yes 3 abstentions, John D: Ed’s absent. Alan O: Ed’s absent. Mr. Secretary, does the motion pass? John D: Yes it does. Alan O: The motion passes, to accept a petition by Jack Gerstkemper to reorganize the Pre War Division. Okay. John D: Hold on a second. We’re in a tie situation here. We have three yes’, three abstentions, one person absent, that’s three to three. Alan O: there were 4 yes’s. Bob, Rick, Brian and John. John D: Brian, Rick Bob and John. Here it is, I forgot to count myself. Alan O: So motion is passed. Jack, what are the next steps? Jack Gerstkemper: I’ll get together with the people on the list, and figure out how we will move on. Alan O: The board will expect to hear from you in a period of time? Jack Gerstkemper: in a few months?"

[NTX5467]

(With such a "free-form" structure and such, how did PWD become a Division of the BCA?  Perhaps in the absence of "a leader" and no regular newsletter or communications with the membership via a newsletter, perhaps the BCA should have deactivated it when those things were more operative?)

 

Thinkin' again,

NTX5467

[NTX5467]

By observation, "controversy" seems to be in the BCA's DNA.  From the later 1990s, there was a move to get younger BOD members, that "new blood" orientation.  Then, when those who advocated for that saw that the "new blood" wasn't acting like the "old blood", they didn't like it.  And on and on and on . . . cycle repeat . . . And here we go again.  Better get some new detergent (environmentally friendly, of course) to wash that dirty laundry in!

 

I professionally believe that when anybody with the title of "Moderator" becomes an active participant in controversial threads, while also being a paid member of the organization being discussed, it can become problematic.  Especially with the "Moderator" tag under their name!  As if it might give their posts more credibility?  Perhaps any Moderator who feels they need to be "in the middle of" controversial threads might also need to state they are making their comments as a paid member of _________ rather than let the readers perceive their comments are being made as a "Moderator"?

 

I commend Mr. Earl for the good job he has done in his Moderator activities!  I feel he has "taken the high road" rather than otherwise.

 

Willis Bell  20811

[dship]

1 hour ago, jscheib said:

Dave,

Regarding the recent action by the BOD, do you mean the move to strip membership of a member of the BOD?

 

John.

Strip membership due to continued conduct unbecoming.

Edited August 7, 2018 by DShip (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

8 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

 

I professionally believe that when anybody with the title of "Moderator" becomes an active participant in controversial threads, while also being a paid member of the organization being discussed, it can become problematic.  Especially with the "Moderator" tag under their name! 

 

Who are you talking about? I seem to be being accused of being involved in a controversial thread but I am a volunteer with AACA, a volunteer with the 36-38 Buick Club, and have also volunteered my services on a couple of times to BCA, although I don't feel like I am a BCA Volunteer, only a member. I am not paid by any of these clubs. I do realize that the AACA webmaster is paid by BCA to be their webmaster, but I have not seen where Peter has commented on this issue. 

[MrEarl]

11 hours ago, MrEarl said:

I mean the pay sucks!!!

 

He may have taken my comment literally Matt. No Willis, unlike some forums, the mods here don't get paid.  My bad...sorry

[1937-44]

 I have no problem with the Pre-War Division being reorganized even though I have never had an issue with it. My main objection is allowing Jack Gerstkemper (for the record I don't know or have ever met Jack Gerstkemper) having anything to do with the Pre-War Division. According to the membership roster he has no pre-war cars,  and I think it goes against the entire BCA membership to proceed with an individual who will admit for the record that he doesn't even want anything to do with two elected board members and others. How can this possibly proceed smoothly without a lot of hard feelings and controversy?

 I suggest the BCA BOD put aside their vote. Reorganize the Pre-War Division with the assistance of a present Pre-War member that is willing to work with the entire BCA BOD and then have the Pre-War membership vote on a new Director.

 

Carl #5538

[JohnD1956]

The motion made was recorded on page 16 of the minutes:

 

Brian C: I will make such a motion that the board consider Jack’s petition as written and that we

reorganize the BCA Pre War Division under his temporary leadership at his request. And hope that we all can come together and form a stronger pre war group as a result. So my motion is: to accept the petition of Jack Gerstkemper to reorganize the Pre War Division under his leadership.

Alan O: Is there a second?

Rick S: I’ll second that. (Assigned motion # 2017-2018-45)

 

The motion document mirrors this:

 

 

And reorganize is in the petition submitted and attached to the minutes as well.  This is the action that was approved by the BOD.

 

 

[1937-44]

 But it is my understanding that in the petition Jack Gerstkemper is to be the interim director for 2 years. "My intention is to have; to be, an interim Director for two years"

 

 What I don't understand is how The BCA BOD can allow any individual who goes on the record and says "But what I’m not willing to do, is work with the four people who seem to be leading this pre war Division right now. That is Terry Weigand, Larry Di Barry, Mark Shaw and Larry Schramm." The entire BCA membership elected 9 people to the board and Jack Gerstkemper is going on the record and saying HE WILL NOT work with 3 of the people we elected. Another words he isn't willing to work with 33% of the board that the entire membership elected.

 Mr Gerstkemper also said "I believe I have a legitimate plan to be an interim Director of the Pre War Division until we can form a pre war division that is not so contentious", " My intention is to have; to be, an interim Director for two years, in which time we will assemble a new organization, and have , and elect a Director. " and "I’m offering the board an opportunity to get a Pre War Division that’s more willing to work with you". 

 Now if he isn't willing to work with 18% of the board how can it not be contentious and how can he work with the board?

 

 The quotes are from the BOD minutes. If some of the members of the BOD doesn't have their own agenda why would you agree to work with an individual who isn't willing to work with at least 18% of the board?

 

 Carl

Edited August 11, 2018 by 1937-44 (see edit history)

[MCHinson]

I was not there so I can only go on the minutes. It appears that the motion was restated by the President incorrectly just before the vote. The vote reflects in the actual minutes as I previously posted. The majority of those who passed the motion are no longer on the board. I still hold the personal opinion that the current board should reverse that decision. First, the motion was made to accept the petition and passed before all of the board members had even seen the petition to be able to read it in its entirety. Second, the person who presented the petition expressed an inability to work with multiple people who are active in the Pre War Division, including current BCA Board Members. It does not much matter if the Division is a New Division or a Reorganized Division to me, a point that is unclear based on the minutes. I simply think that the board made a bad decision and needs to reverse its error. That action would be one that would help start rebuilding trust within the organization's management that I contend needs to happen. 

[MrEarl]

10 hours ago, MCHinson said:

, I still have the same rights to post my opinion on issues related to clubs that I am a member of. You also have those same rights. You don't give up your own rights when you take on moderation duties. 

Perhaps you are correct that we as moderators have just as much right as the other users to post our opinions on club related issues. But in my opinion, over and beyond those rights, we as moderators have a responsibility to weigh our comments against what benefit or harm they may have to the discussion/issue at hand and consider what the perceptions of our users might be that since a moderator said it it must be right. I have always just taken the road that is less bumpy and try to suppress my own comments when it comes to political or other controversial subjects. But again that is just my opinion and my way of doing things. I guess that is where you and I differ, I respect that and will stand down on that subject.

 

11 hours ago, MCHinson said:

When I diagree with the direction of any club that I am a member of, I make the leadership aware of my opinion on the issue. I have had direct communication with all of the BCA board members on this issue in the past month or so. They all know exactly how I feel.

 

and I commend you for doing so, THAT is where it will be of most benefit, not here on this forum which very few of the board or general membership for that matter even ever read or participate in. If you and others have made your thoughts known to the forces that matter, why bring all the political banter here to our otherwise quiet little forum. It irks me that absolutely no world politics discussion is allowed here but club politics is and that it is hardly ever of much value especially when weighed against the disruption and discord it causes. In my opinion, so much of what is said here is no more than grandstanding and at times political grandstanding at that. I guess what I am saying is that for the minute good that it offers I would be happy to see a "No Club Politics Allowed" policy implemented. In a perfect world opinions of political opinion should be able to be voiced but it seems that here it only ends up in disruptive controversial banter that many, myself included are sick of.

[jscheib]

11 hours ago, JohnD1956 said:

There was a vote to re-organize the Pre War Division, not form a new one.  Re read the minutes. The Division was composed of a list of 400 members ,which is never culled.  It had no By laws, no formal or informal way to elect a leader, it had no structure.  When the leader left for two years no one took over. It had no newsletter and it only communicated with the folks who participated in this forum.

 

I think the prior BOD did the right thing.  

John,

 

One slight correction.  The primary route of  communication is the e-mailing list, not the forum.  to me, that is secondary.  Our mailing list coordinator is Jim Forshey who is away on an extended post retirement vacation at this time.  I will be checking with him about how many communications he has sent out each year, hopefully he has those records.

 

John

[Mark Shaw]

1 hour ago, jscheib said:

John,

 

One slight correction.  The primary route of  communication is the e-mailing list, not the forum.  to me, that is secondary.  Our mailing list coordinator is Jim Forshey who is away on an extended post retirement vacation at this time.  I will be checking with him about how many communications he has sent out each year, hopefully he has those records.

 

John

John,

      Actually, this forum replaced the PWD newsletter that Jim forshey emailed for us for over ten years.  Announcements and requests for PWD AfterTour  leaders and participation have been posted here for the last few years. 

 

This is also why it is important to allow our members to post here and read what is happening with the BCA PWD.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Mark Shaw (see edit history)

[1937-44]

1 hour ago, MrEarl said:

THAT is where it will be of most benefit, not here on this forum which very few of the board or general membership for that matter even ever read or participate in. If you and others have made your thoughts known to the forces that matter, why bring all the political banter here to our otherwise quiet little forum.

 I agree in  a perfect world there would be no politics on the forum and we would all enjoy the pictures of cars, assistance and camaraderie that is a major part of the forums. But that would be assuming we were all in perfect harmony with each other all the time and that will probably never happen.

 However I disagree with the idea of not allowing it because of for lack of a better term at the moment lazy members like myself. Had it not been brought up on the forum I would not have read the BOD minutes and been made aware of this subject. Perhaps a separate forum dealing with politics would make the moderators job easier and keep most of the ranting in one forum so that we could all visit or ignore that forum as we see fit.

[old-tank]

11 hours ago, DShip said:

13 hours ago, jscheib said:

Dave,

Regarding the recent action by the BOD, do you mean the move to strip membership of a member of the BOD?

 

John.

Strip membership due to continued conduct unbecoming.

At the general membership meeting in Denver the board member was "voted off the Island" by the members in attendance.  Let's see if the current BOD who represents ALL of the members actually follows through.

[MrEarl]

22 minutes ago, 1937-44 said:

Perhaps a separate forum dealing with politics would make the moderators job easier and keep most of the ranting in one forum so that we could all visit or ignore that forum as we see fit.

 

Can I count on you to moderate said forum Carl. Just yankin your chain my friend. That's an idea I have considered and may need to revisit and maybe run up the flagpole. Thanks for your always well thought out and on point posts sir.

[Brian_Heil]

It is interesting that there were no PWD members complaining about the PWD or its Director and nobody asked us either, but a single person puts forth a motion and a BOD seconds it. 

 

But, there are non PWD members complaining about the PWD's desire to park all together, and Mark Shaw led that effort, and a number of those complaining are on the BOD.  That's all fact.

 

Then a person who has not been involved with the PWD, (go ahead search for posts by this person, the PWD site is the PWD communication method) asks via a motion that he replace the current PWD Director and 10 minutes later his motion passes and the 'information' this new person presents for part of his 'case' is proven false.

 

And I agree this is no fun as someone said above, but when something this egregious is permitted to happen by the BOD, I rise and comment.  No BCA member should be treated like this by any member let alone the BOD.

 

I organized the 2017 PWD Dinner in Brookfield.  I organized the 2017 PWD After Tour also.  Ask those who attended either what they think about this issue.  They represent the PWD.

 

My pervious comment got erased when this topic got re-started so I am sharing this again. 

 

And another fact where the newly elected person goes on the record and states that he can't work with those PWD member on the BOD.  Does that not make you wonder what's going on here? 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Brian_Heil (see edit history)

[jscheib]

Brian,

 

I hail your efforts and fully agree, except Jack G. was not elected.  He was "appointed" by the BOD vote for his own motion from the floor.  I am not sure of the formal procedure, but must be some procedure to ask the current board for a reversal of that hasty decision vote as quickly as possible.  I am reading up on that as quickly as I can.

 

John

[1937-44]

18 hours ago, MCHinson said:

When I diagree with the direction of any club that I am a member of, I make the leadership aware of my opinion on the issue.

 I think Matt has the best idea. We elected 9 individuals to the board to run our club the way we would like it run. Instead of grousing continually (admittedly I do also) I followed Matt's lead in this instance and sent an email to every member of the board expressing my feelings in this matter. I believe it was Mr Earl that commented some of the board doesn't visit the forum so the best way to make sure they know how you feel is send them a letter or an email.

 Let your voice be heard where it will do the most good.

 

Carl

 

[BUICK RACER]

1 hour ago, 1937-44 said:

 I think Matt has the best idea. We elected 9 individuals to the board to run our club the way we would like it run. Instead of grousing continually (admittedly I do also) I followed Matt's lead in this instance and sent an email to every member of the board expressing my feelings in this matter. I believe it was Mr Earl that commented some of the board doesn't visit the forum so the best way to make sure they know how you feel is send them a letter or an email.

 Let your voice be heard where it will do the most good.

 

Carl

 

Most of the BOD, i've been here since day one!

[John_S_in_Penna]

5 hours ago, jscheib said:

Brian,

I hail your efforts and fully agree, except Jack G. was not elected.  He was "appointed" by the BOD vote for his own motion from the floor.  I am not sure of the formal procedure, but must be some procedure to ask the current board for a reversal of that hasty decision vote as quickly as possible.  I am reading up on that as quickly as I can.

John

 

I don't know all the players, but I can stand for Principle,

whichever side it's on.

 

The BCA undoubtedly has by-laws, and the by-laws likely incorporate

a specific edition of Robert's Rules of Order.  If the board

did something that conflicts with the by-laws or the

proper and fair procedures in Robert's Rules of Order, no one

need ask them to reverse an action.  Such an action is

automatically null and void.

 

There are specific rules for "trying" an officer before 

removing him, if such a sad occurrence really is necessary.

 

An excellent and practical book is Robert's Rules of Order

Simplified and Applied, by Robert McConnell.

 

In dealing with your fellow human beings, both principle and 

kindness are necessary.  Those two aren't mutually exclusive.

It may seem hard to stand for right while at the same time treating

the other person kindly, but it's possible--and needed.  It's also

a great practice in building character and healing the club.

 

[NTX5467]

Mr. Hinson is a member of the BCA, the organization being discussed, in how it conducts its business.  I know the Moderators are volunteer.  My apologies if my statement might have been misunderstood.

 

Willis Bell  20811

[NTX5467]

BOD Composition and Election Proposal --

 

The Membership elects a BOD President, Vice-President, and Treasurer.  EACH of the BCA Divisions will send ONE of their members (selected by them) to sit and function on the BCA BOD.  The other BCA BOD officers not elected by the Membership, will complete the remainder of the BCA BOD functions (Secretary, etc.).  Tue BCA BOD shall also be empowered to appoint additional functions, as the CFO, as desired.  The three BOD membership-elected positions shall have a limit of 8 consecutive years of service.  Appointees will have no term limit, serving at the pleasure of the total BOD.

 

This way, EVERY division in the BCA will have representation on the BOD, should they desire it.  If they send no member from their divisional ranks, an "empty seat" that shall remain empty will result.  Should any of the three elected BOD members have any conflict of interest regarding any subject for consideration by the BOD, they shall recuse themselves from any participation in the discussion and voting on the particular agenda item.

 

Over the years, I have heard far too many comments about whom was being influenced by whom, who is aligned with what group, or who was allegedly "in the shadows" controlling how particular BOD members voted/acted.  Rumors, I believe, but many tend to believe these things.  The intent of my proposal is to ensure that EVERYBODY has a seat at the table, IF they desire to fill it and represent their BCA Division on the BOD.

 

Just some thoughts, with possibly a few refinements later on,

Willis Bell 20811

[MCHinson]

Interesting idea but I can't imagine how that would work in the real world. It sounds like it would be a chaotic mess to keep up with. It seems that this got started due to a disagreement about who is the Director of ONE Division, I can't imagine if all BCA members had potential motivation to dispute who was the legitimate authority from EVERY Division.

[NTX5467]

It's real easy.  Each Division elects its own representative, from their respective divisional membership.  Doesn't have to be any "leader of the division", just a simple vote of the members-of-record of the division.  This would also mean each division would need a current list of members, with their current BCA memberships verified by the BCA Office

 

Another benefit would be the suspected huge decrease in perceptions that the BOD is being controlled by people "of a particular vehicular orientation", as such.  Everybody has equal representation from the Divisions.  Only duplications might be with the three membership-elected officers, which could be variable.

 

Every Division has a seat at the table.  Everybody has ONE vote.  Might need to get back to "face-to-face" BOD meetings for the best results?

 

Willis Bell  20811 

[NTX5467]

As I stated previously, an organization's "By-Laws" are formulated by the organization as their rule of self-governance.  That basically means a BOD made and approved those rules themselves.  There would probably need to be some areas where discussions were held, before further action on or approval of them.  Later BODs are empowered to add to, amend, alter, vacate, or temporarily suspend any section, as long as approved actions are employed to do so.  Later BODs would also have the empowerment to selectively not enforce various items, as they might determine necessary, by approved actions.

 

As I understand it, "Robert's Rules of Order" do not have to be followed, unless the By-Laws so specify.

 

In short, the BOD formulates the By-Laws, but can also decide to vote to not follow the By-Laws in specific instances, if they do so by a majority vote (with "majority" having a variable definition, but being anything over a 50% amount).

 

There might be some general guidelines for formulating a By-Laws document, but I don't believe that anything is set in stone about how they are configured.  As the BOD built them, to their perceived needs and liking.

 

Ever notice how our federal or state elected legislators have changed their "voting rules" to define "majority vote" to a particular percentage?  They're changing the rules they operate by, to their liking, in particular instances.

 

Just some thoughts,

Willis Bell  20811

[MCHinson]

10 hours ago, NTX5467 said:

It's real easy.  Each Division elects its own representative, from their respective divisional membership.  Doesn't have to be any "leader of the division", just a simple vote of the members-of-record of the division. 

 

I have to disagree that it would be "real easy". It would be extremely complicated. 

 

How would you explain the dilution of the influence in voting to BCA members who are not members of any Division? They now have the same right to vote for all of the BCA board members as every other BCA member. In your proposal, they no longer get to vote for a majority of the board. They no longer have the power to vote to substantially control the organization that they are paying dues to. They lose any ability to control the destiny of the organization through voting, suggesting how others vote, etc. 

 

I guess the good news is you seem to have been effective in derailing the original discussion, which might be what you had in mind...