midman

AACA Museum & AACA, What is Going On

Recommended Posts

Thank you, AACA Board, for posting that lengthy

explanation for us all.  It combines the Museum's

position with the national board's comments, in a

very understandable format.

 

I'm sure more information, to come, will be helpful too.

I guess we'll have to go to the Museum's website

to see their further explanations, if they care to post 

them there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Steve and board, for giving the membership your rational on the decision to break away from further support of the Museum. An open airing of both sides views, without deletions or redactions, is exactly what should be happening. I'm not sure I would describe presenting both side's views of the situation as a "PR war". It would help us better understand, point by point, the clubs position ......................Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys I actually woke up around 3:am and worried about this mess! (It's that important to me!) Is there still a way or plan to 'go back the old drawing board' so to speak and see if a new deal can still be worked out - putting all previous behind us?

The land is still there, the want for a new Library/HQ facility is still there. We have so much to work with  - great people, great Club, magazine, forum, Museum & Library that everyone involved enjoys and obviously cares deeply about! Steve and Jeff are true 'car guys' and concerned Executive Directors of their respective 'units,' we are lucky to have them both! Both boards are made up of dedicated volunteers. What can I/WE do to HELP?

 

Here's a photo of James Melton a past AACA National President who operated his own museum. (He's been called yesterday's Jay Leno.) Let's hope he'll send us down some guidance!

PS - both of his books are in OUR AACA Library - see I got all three in!  It can be done.

JM  - CHRYS.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AACA National Board said:
  It is a mission-driven 501 (C) 3 organization that is not going anywhere. Easy to say, but why has the Museum been unable to close the revolving door on the Museum Executive Directors position? They have had a new one every couple of years.

 

Inserting a rhetorical question in a discussion such as this reads as though it was designed to be a cheap shot to fan the flames.  I fail to see how it is constructive.  Overall, it is a reply loaded with a lot of "he said / she said" and no documentation.  Yes, I saw the part about "technical difficulties" with posting documents but, given the context, this looks hasty and given how long this has been allowed to fester, another 12 hours wouldn't have sunk the boat.

 

While we're throwing all these numbers around, I would like to see specific numbers pertaining to the Library.  It gets used a lot as a tool in this discussion, but there is nothing that I can find in the Club's 990 that details what it generates on its own and / or what the Club spends to prop it up.  It's a wholly relevant part of the equation that to this point is still blank.

 

 

Edited by W_Higgins
typo (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly all of this discussion is not accomplishing anything, to some folks.  That's what happens when we rely on typing instead of speaking.   A person can type something, but without inflection or non-verbals to go with it, the words become completely literal and often misinterpreted by the reader.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 39BuickEight said:

Clearly all of this discussion is not accomplishing anything, to some folks.  That's what happens when we rely on typing instead of speaking.   A person can type something, but without inflection or non-verbals to go with it, the words become completely literal and often misinterpreted by the reader.

 

There you go Billy, and that's why I posted my phone number, although I am busy every day keeping 8 people gainfully employed. The majority of our Board are still working too, so naturally they can NOT stay on the forums reading comments all day. The post this early morning (did you notice the 1am) was from our complete Board. More than one person was involved in that post. I think it pretty well covers everything. 

 

Thanks for your patience!

Wayne

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidently the Club seems to have it's mind already made up and sees the Museum as an enemy to be foiled by whatever means. I'm not so sure the larger membership, at this point, sees either side as having the most compelling case and simply would like more information so as to better decide what is the best course of action the club should take. Steve's rebuttal in his last post was effective because he was able to counter the Museum point by point. Letting the Museum post in the forum would not only give the Board the opportunity to present a cogent rebuttal but it affords the AACA the moral high ground. I fear the Board is letting ego and emotion get in the way of logic and free flow of information.

By not allowing the Museum to present their case directly to the membership the club is coming across as petty and, worse yet, insecure in it's position.

At some point the Club will likely wish to spend a million(s) of member's monies on a new headquarters. Making a solid case for that now will make it go down a lot easier in the future. And yes, "PR" war or not , is important................Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bhigdog said:

Evidently the Club seems to have it's mind already made up and sees the Museum as an enemy to be foiled by whatever means. I'm not so sure the larger membership, at this point, sees either side as having the most compelling case and simply would like more information so as to better decide what is the best course of action the club should take. Steve's rebuttal in his last post was effective because he was able to counter the Museum point by point. Letting the Museum post in the forum would not only give the Board the opportunity to present a cogent rebuttal but it affords the AACA the moral high ground. I fear the Board is letting ego and emotion get in the way of logic and free flow of information.

By not allowing the Museum to present their case directly to the membership the club is coming across as petty and, worse yet, insecure in it's position.

At some point the Club will likely wish to spend a million(s) of member's monies on a new headquarters. Making a solid case for that now will make it go down a lot easier in the future. And yes, "PR" war or not , is important................Bob

Bob while I'm an infrequent poster here as I still work 50 + hours a week, I first joined this club at age 13, and am a  lifetime AACA member. In recent years I have  followed your posts . You always appear to be reasonable, but your comments here compel me to respond to your suppositions which are ill founded. You apparently have missed the point that our entire merger committee on the club side volunteered to step aside and delegate negotiations to a third party non board affiliated group of members, many of whom are substantial advocates for and donors to the Museum. We in fact asked the Museum TO KEEP DISCUSSIONS OPEN. Which is hardly as you charactersize " mind alreadly made up and sees the Museum as an enemy to be FOILED by whatever means (Seriously??) Our offer to the Museum of this continued dialogue through a third party group was rebuffed by demands that we provide full financial support for 2017 for the privilege of having them sit down with that third party group. You will see that letter on this forum. Clearly if there were egos involved they did not come from our side.

 

Our group has spent hundreds of hours on this issue, and I have personally logged nearly 5,000 miles of driving to meetings in Hershey. We have taken this very seriously. We want the club and Museum to be together, but at what cost? Would it matter to you if we made a bad deal which wasn't in the interests of our membership? I have no doubt that if we made a sweetheart deal which lopsidedly benefited the Museum and disenfranchised your voting rights as a member you would be more bellicose than you are now.

 

I would also like to point out that while Steve is intimately involved in this matter as you would expect and for which we are grateful, The "rebuttal" you reference did not come from him, but directly from your Board. Your assertion that we seem "insecure" in our position is interesting given that our Board votes on all relevant Museum issues have been 100% unanimous, which Is difficult with the most benign of motions. I can assure you we are more than confident in our positions, and with good reason. I have faith you will eventually feel the same way.

 

The Museum has presented their case Bob, and we are responding and presenting ours.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My final comment on this subject. I have no axe to grind, and no reason to favor one orginazation over the other. I digested the material from both sides. Read between the lines, and have come to the following conclusion. The Museum has overreached and over played its hand. Interestingly, as a avid collector of museum quaility items, I recently have begun giving up my collection of what I consider some of the best automobilia and dealer items that exsist anywhere, I have been donating them to museums that please my idea of what a transportation museum should be. I may have considered making a donation to the AACA Museum in the past. Now I will not. I am sure it will have no effect on the current events as they transpire. I will continue to support the AACA, and now, may even bring a car to Philly just to pay things forward. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication(AACA Car Club). I look forward to another forty six years of the fall meet.........Ed

 

 

IMG_2198.PNG

Edited by edinmass (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take thus far: 

 

The Club Board's line-by-line rebuttal to the Museum's polemic needed to be done.  But as I said earlier, the Museum's webpage statement is more heat than light. I see the Club Board's comments as somewhat more measured, but not that much. Both sides are clearly disappointed at the outcome, and that's a GOOD thing. It's time to refrain from further attacks and return to business.

 

Value of the land, which seems to be an issue, should be established by a MAI appraisal (cost to be equally divided), not that of a broker or even worse Zillow.

 

I applaud the Club's offer to have a new negotiating team which would include donors to both the Club/Library and the Museum--thanks for the added information, Mr. Cox.  I believe the Museum should meet that offer with their own new team, although we all recognize that certain principals of each must be involved, and the Boards of each need to approve any new offer. The negotiations to this point appear to me to have become so toxic that a change of players is not only warranted but necessary.

 

As I also said once before, *one* more year of Club financial and usual fundraising support to the Museum should not be that big of a deal, and demonstrates the Club's goodwill. Obviously, the Museum should reciprocate and do one more year of business-as-usual on events and fundraising.

 

Negotiators and principals on both sides, I'm sure you have all had protracted negotiations for that special car or that special piece of real property.  Please remember the primary lesson most of us have learned--if it's a car or property you'd keep for many years, it's worth it to pay a little more than it may be worth today. The membership is interested in this because we know this to a certainty.

 

Edinmass's post states why we, the members, are so interested in this:  We have cars, literature, and automobilia that will have to be disposed of after our deaths.  We are vitally interested in finding *worthy* homes for that stuff. Ed has, hopefully, much more time than I do--I'm more than 20 years older than he is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, TomCox said:

You apparently have missed the point that our entire merger committee on the club side volunteered to step aside and delegate negotiations to a third party non board affiliated group of members, many of whom are substantial advocates for and donors to the Museum. We in fact asked the Museum TO KEEP DISCUSSIONS OPEN. Which is hardly as you charactersize " mind alreadly made up and sees the Museum as an enemy to be FOILED by whatever means (Seriously??) Our offer to the Museum of this continued dialogue through a third party group was rebuffed by demands that we provide full financial support for 2017 for the privilege of having them sit down with that third party group.

 

Isn't that really just a "different party group" rather than a "third party group"?  My understanding is that a "third party" as applied in the traditional sense would be an impartial one.  It is hard to see where a different set of Club members is going to be able to act impartially no matter how principled or well-intentioned..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter, 

 

There is enough information available for people to read and spend many hours digesting all of the "what if" scenarios that they may wish to come up with. There are obviously many more communications that have gone between the AACA committee and the AACA Museum committee members during the attempts to merge the organizations. I don't personally think that we need to disect every word in an attempt to find fault. I find it odd that the Museum's stated position seems to be that they want to continue to negotiate and yet one of their most recent actions was to throw the incoming 2017 AACA President off of their board a couple of months before he assumes that office. We now know that the AACA Board has attempted to offer other individuals to negotiate with the Museum but the Museum Board's actions clearly demonstrate an intent that is quite different from there "stated" position. 

 

Hopefully in the future, there will be a chance to make a merger happen or else hopefully the two organizations can at some time in the future have a relationship more like what it has been in the past. For now, it sounds like the AACA Board is doing what it needs to do in the interest of the membership. The board has my support unless I learn something far different from what the currently available information shows.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

Walter, 

 

There is enough information available for people to read and spend many hours digesting all of the "what if" scenarios that they may wish to come up with. There are obviously many more communications that have gone between the AACA committee and the AACA Museum committee members during the attempts to merge the organizations. I don't personally think that we need to disect every word in an attempt to find fault. I find it odd that the Museum's stated position seems to be that they want to continue to negotiate and yet one of their most recent actions was to throw the incoming 2017 AACA President off of their board a couple of months before he assumes that office. We now know that the AACA Board has attempted to offer other individuals to negotiate with the Museum but the Museum Board's actions clearly demonstrate an intent that is quite different from there "stated" position. 

 

Hopefully in the future, there will be a chance to make a merger happen or else hopefully the two organizations can at some time in the future have a relationship more like what it has been in the past. For now, it sounds like the AACA Board is doing what it needs to do in the interest of the membership. The board has my support unless I learn something far different from what the currently available information shows.

 

Check-o.  No attempt to understand the situation is valid unless that understanding supports blindly following the Club without documentation.  Understood.

 

So far everything has been without.  I think most here are more interested in seeing docs rather than hearing filtered opinions.  If the people posting here don't want to entertain questions, they shouldn't be posting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope in the end everything works out for all, but are we possibly spinning our wheels? Do we have an alternate direction to follow which can also indicate what can be done to establish a new HQ, Library and Research Facility, with potential Cost to Build, and a time line, somewhere other then the Museum Grounds?

 

Worst case, what happens if we put the expansion on the back burner, stay put and possibly have a remote location near the existing HQ, for ware housing the over flow donations which could be cataloged and retrievable upon request?

 

To have an alternate plan might help relax the the current situation knowing life can go on with out the Museum's involvement. It might be more cost effective as well. Just something to think about.

Edited by Doug Novak (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Peter J.Heizmann said:

Tom is one of the finest people you would ever want to meet.

Peter J.

 

 

 

Peter

I echo your statement regarding Tom, but would like to add that, as a non-participating invited guest in some of the AACA Board meetings, I lay witness that there is absolutely no one on the board that had any sort of ulterior agenda in this matter other than to seek what's best for the club. They have carried out their fiduciary responsibilities, and for that, I am thankful for, and proud of them.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to Tom Cox:

Hi Tom. First, let state my appreciation for all you and the other members of the board and even individual members have done for the club. And again, let me state loud and clear. I, right now, don't have a position on who is right, wrong or in between. There may be some compromise position that would work to everyone's satisfaction. I truly hope there is.

So, my posts should not be construed of being critical of the AACA's position but rather a continued call for full and open disclosure so that the membership can make informed decisions.

To that end I strongly feel that the Museum should be permitted to post in the forum. You say the AACA is confident in their position. I'm heartened to hear that and look forward to being able to see the Museum's argument debated right here for all to see.

My reference to the Club seeing the Museum as an enemy was prompted by a remark made to me by a Club "official" in which he stated the Museum was "an outside force" trying to "use the forum against" the Club". I think that description of the Museum could reasonably be construed to mean opponent or even enemy.

Again Tom, Thank you for your reply and please understand I am not an opponent or even a critic of the Club. I truly want the best outcome for both entities. And I truly believe the best outcome can only be realized if there is a complete, free, and unencumbered by emotion dialog open to the membership........................Bob Beck

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, W_Higgins said:

 

Check-o.  No attempt to understand the situation is valid unless that understanding supports blindly following the Club without documentation.  Understood.

 

Not at all.

 

No more so than you apparent belief that we should ignore the Museum Board's actions but believe their Media Release that implies a totally different direction than what their actions show. Still waiting for the rest of the documentation but not ignoring the facts already presented...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MCHinson said:

Not at all.

 

No more so than you apparent belief that we should ignore the Museum Board's actions but believe their Media Release that implies a totally different direction than what their actions show. Still waiting for the rest of the documentation but not ignoring the facts already presented...

 

You must be missing part of the puzzle.  Both parties have put out statements.  The Museum released five docs and thus far the Club has released none.  You should not presume that my take on things is based on a singular "media release".  In fact, I fail to understand how, as a moderator, that's really your duty at all.  There was nothing out of line with respect to my quote and question in #236 above. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter, While I am a moderator on this site, as an individual, I still have the right to respond to what I intrepret as a personal insult directed towards me from a fellow forum member. I have read all of the documents released so far and the posts in this discussion and I find the museum board's public statement contrary to their actions and the some of the content of the documents that they have released. Personally, I take your prior statement implying that I am "blindly following" the club without documentation as insulting and derogatory. Hopefully the personal attacks can cease and a civil discussion of the facts can occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MCHinson said:

Walter, While I am a moderator on this site, as an individual, I still have the right to respond to what I intrepret as a personal insult directed towards me from a fellow forum member. I have read all of the documents released so far and the posts in this discussion and I find the museum board's public statement contrary to their actions and the some of the content of the documents that they have released. Personally, I take your prior statement implying that I am "blindly following" the club without documentation as insulting and derogatory. Hopefully the personal attacks can cease and a civil discussion of the facts can occur.

 

I quoted Tom Cox and asked a question, you inserted yourself and replied to it, and did so without answering the question.  Tom has demonstrated that he's a savvy individual and I would suspect he's quite capable of answering the question on his own.

 

There is a reading comprehension problem at play here.  Your comment was directed at me.  I did not say that you were blindly following anything.  The context is that you expect me to blindly follow (the blind here are those to whom documentation has not been provided.).  You also presume that I have no knowledge of the situation here beyond what has been posted on the web.  I have not made the same assumption of you and would not given your position in the inner sanctum of the workings here.   

 

Also, an interesting note -- the Museum executive director whose post was deleted and was subsequently banned.... he's a Club member, too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     I just received my "Urgent" letter from the AACA national Headquarters.  I have read all the posts to this point along with the letter from the national board of directors.  There seems to be a consensus among all concerned that it would be best to maintain some relationship between the club and the museum.  Although some may still want both to merge, that will not happen within any reasonable time frame, if ever.  Therefore, I suggest we all stop trying to place blame and move forward to re-negotiate an agreement to continue to exist separately but cooperatively as before. 

 

     It is obvious that to facilitate many of the goals of both entities, it would be best to establish the new club headquarters & library next to the museum.  To that end, I ask members of both boards to negotiate a new proposal to acquire the needed property from the museum to build a new club headquarters and library without unnecessary restrictions or requirements associated with a merger.  The club should pay fair market price, or preferably be granted the property in appreciation for the substantial support and monies previously received from the club and it's members.  This would go a long way to repair the relationship between the two entities and promote continued support from the club and it's members.

 

     This negotiation would best be done without lawyers present.  Enough said!

Edited by Mark Shaw (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, W_Higgins said:

 

I quoted Tom Cox and asked a question, you inserted yourself and replied to it, and did so without answering the question.  Tom has demonstrated that he's a savvy individual and I would suspect he's quite capable of answering the question on his own.

 

There is a reading comprehension problem at play here.  Your comment was directed at me.  I did not say that you were blindly following anything.  The context is that you expect me to blindly follow (the blind here are those to whom documentation has not been provided.).  You also presume that I have no knowledge of the situation here beyond what has been posted on the web.  I have not made the same assumption of you and would not given your position in the inner sanctum of the workings here.   

 

Also, an interesting note -- the Museum executive director whose post was deleted and was subsequently banned.... he's a Club member, too.

 

 

So your position appears to be that when you quote Tom and then post a general question, that was directed only to Tom, but when you quote me and post a question that is not specifically directed to me?  As has already been stated, another moderator deleted a post by the museum executive director. Additional posts were made after deletion and yes, he is currently temporarily suspended from posting for reposting after the prior post deletion. He has not been "banned" from the site but has been temporarily suspended. Please stick to the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2016 at 3:39 PM, oldford said:

I have been, up til now, somewhat quiet on the issue.  Someone on the first page asked if the cause was egos or money... Since the above links only show one side of the story, my guess is egos...

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the info I read from the Museum sounded reasonable.

 

Frank

You guessed wrong, at least on the Club's part.

Edited by Dynaflash8 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mark Shaw said:

     I just received my "Urgent" letter from the AACA national Headquarters.  I have read all the posts to this point along with the letter from the national board of directors.  There seems to be a consensus among all concerned that it would be best to maintain some relationship between the club and the museum.  Although some may still want both to merge, that will not happen within any reasonable time frame, if ever.  Therefore, I suggest we all stop trying to place blame and move forward to re-negotiate an agreement to continue to exist separately but cooperatively as before. 

 

     It is obvious that to facilitate many of the goals of both entities, it would be best to establish the new club headquarters & library next to the museum.  To that end, I ask members of both boards to negotiate a new proposal to acquire the needed property from the museum to build a new club headquarters and library without unnecessary restrictions or requirements associated with a merger.  The club should pay fair market price, or preferably be granted the property in appreciation for the substantial support and monies previously received from the club and it's members.  This would go a long way to repair the relationship between the two entities and promote continued support from the club and it's members.

 

     This negotiation would best be done without lawyers present.  Enough said!

So, you want us to buy property we have already facilitated buying before?  No, if we buy any property, I think it should be someplace off or the museum gounds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How was it that these two entities started out separately to begin with?  The museum should have always been under the AACA's control from day 1.  Obviously there's a lot that I don't understand about the relationship, but it seems strange to me that they would ever be separate.  Once again, egos and hubris are ruining a good time for all.  We're all on the same team!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.