midman

AACA Museum & AACA, What is Going On

Recommended Posts

Guys, guys, GUYS!!

 

Gee, gone for half the day, and it's gone crazy. In the old days I would have deleted this tread by now, if it wasn't so important. Someone earlier said that nothing will get done by arguing about it on this forum.

 

The Board of Directors make the decisions concerning the Antique Automobile Club of America. No one else, and I mean NO ONE ELSE! We work hard to make the best decisions that we can for you, the AACA member. We WILL NOT let anyone take advantage of our club. So, let's everyone chill out and let this system work itself out.

 

Come January 1, 2017, the AACA Museum and the AACA Club/Library will still be in business and doing mostly what we have before.

 

Please Chill!

 

Wayne 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How was it that these two entities started out separately to begin with?

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/12/15/aaca-withdraws-financial-support-from-aaca-museum-after-merger-negotiations-fall-through/

http://news.classiccars.com/aaca-museum-comments-merger-situation/

 

These two links help explain that situation. From the Hemmings piece, the museum when first formed needed nonprofit status which the club did not have at the time - 

 

As both club and museum officials acknowledged, not too many people – including members of the AACA – realized that the club and museum operated as separate entities. That situation arose at the time of the founding of the museum in 2003 due to the fact that the AACA was not then operating as a 501(c)3 non-profit. Only by establishing the museum as a non-profit could it accept monetary and vehicular donations.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification.  Sounds like just simple bad circumstances to me.  I will proudly support both entities equally, as we're all family.  I'm just a small-time member, but I suggest we accept our differences, shake hands, and move on towards what's going to be the best AACA and AACA Museum year ever!

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad that the Museum Board has put forth their viewpoint: https://news.classiccars.com/aaca-museum-comments-merger-situation/

I urge everyone interested to read it, before passing judgement on this issue. Until now, I've only read or received the AACA Board's point of view. This puts it in a little bit different light.

Pete Phillips

AACA Member

Leonard, Texas

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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? 

 

I cannot find anywhere in our exchanges where I have asked you a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Walter,

 

You may be correct about someone having a reading comprehension problem. I never said you asked me a question. Please read my previous posts again. Feel free to send me a Private Message. There is really no need for you to continue to try to argue with me publicly in this discussion. 

Share this post


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

 

I cannot find anywhere in our exchanges where I have asked you a question.

 

Walter, call me at 804-313-1983 if you need any more information. 

 

I have told Matt that I will handle this tonight!

 

Wayne

Edited by R W Burgess
I am a terrible speller! (see edit history)

Share this post


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

Walter,

. There is really no need for you to continue to try to argue with me publicly in this discussion. 

 

He can call me Matt! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has become unnecessarily complicated, so I'm going to repost this since it has become buried and was never answered:

 

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.

 

Tom (or whomever can actually answer the question),

 

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
2 minutes ago, W_Higgins said:

This has become unnecessarily complicated, so I'm going to repost this since it has become buried and was never answered:

 

 

Tom (or whomever can actually answer the question),

 

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..

 

What you are asking makes no sense. An outside group was asked to help with the merger talks. It did not work, end of story. There will not be a different set of club members. It is an AACA Board decision. Talking about on this forum does not change anything either.

 

Call me!

Wayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all about control over the entities involved, and it seems, from the documents posted, that the Club rejects (on advice of pro bono lawyer) control being "equal" over both entities.

 

I had a long talk today with someone in the Club who has watched and been aware of the relationship, from the first, between the Club and the Museum.  He's a youngster, to me, but very observant, and very involved in both hobby and business of antique cars,and, to my enlightenment, much more aware of the rift that exists between Club and Museum than yours truly.

 

One of his statements really resonates with me...and I'll paraphrase of course.....the two entities, Club and Museum, are not realizing that the common goal is to further the antique automobile hobby, and participation in the furtherance of keeping history both intact and alive of antique vehicles, a history that is fading as generations go by.

 

Thus, "control" is a major issue.  This stance will hurt the hobby in the long run, and that should be so obvious to all involved, but apparently is eclipsed by legalese, and lawyers, influencing the Club board. Lawyers will always give the most conservative, to a fault, advice, as they only see to the end of their noses, and God forbid they're liable for any so-so advice,. A reasonable letter of intent, then a lawyer looked at it, immediate "rejection".  This is not an off the cuff remark, I've worked with lawyers on many deals, yes, they have their place, but their viewpoint is skewed to"how can they hold me liable if my council is seen later as bad".

 

You know, in the end, guess this doesn't matter to me personally.  I've been collecting and restoring antique cars for over 50 years, and it's been the most rewarding experience, mostly in people met, secondarily in history that has been preserved.  My day to day life is minimally influenced by such foolishness.  But, I do fear for the future...

 

This issue between the Club and Museum needs to be resolved, but if not, the hobby goes on....and while I respect the effort and time of the Club board, I also do not comprehend how such a common goal can be so twisted by money and egos as to be dismissed so lightly..from a reasonable Letter of Intent a year ago, to "the hell with you" now, just doesn't make sense.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mike6024 said:

Does the AACA also have 501 (c) 3 nonprofit status now? Donations to the club tax deductible?

Yes Sir! Any donations are appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After four or five days of hot tempers & partial mis-information, I think we should await the next issue of the Antique Automobile for the rest of the story. So far the AACA Museum has offended all of the AACA membership and most of the people who donated automobiles and artifacts.

This whole discussion reflects poorly on the Museum BOD, and illustrates why the BOD of the Antique Car Club suspended the talks. At this point, I'd love to hear form Bill Smith who was our Executive Director when the Museum was formed and is now on their BOD as to what has changed in 16 years?

Knowing that most AACA members are not Forum participants, I'll wait on the next issue of Antique Automobile for a reasonably complete explanation and update.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, R W Burgess said:

Yes Sir! Any donations are appreciated!

At what point in time will we be 100% guaranteed that a  donation to AACA the CLUB & LIBRARY goes to them and them ALONE and the house on the hill with the car collection is NOT getting a dime of it? Bob

Edited by 1937hd45 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point you are 100% guaranteed!  Certainly you can always write on your donation where you want the money to go and any charity is legally bound to follow that wish. 

 

I just got back after two days of basically being gone.  Have not read everything here and I know the board has more information to post that will be illuminating. Unfortunately, we had some IT PDF conversion issues. 

 

There is one issue I have been aware and feel the need to respond to tonight and that is personal attacks on our merger committee chair.  Tom Cox at all times has tried to represent our members interest above all.  His removal by the museum was obviously not unanimous other wise they would have said so.  I have participated with Tom at most of our meetings and he has handled himself professionally and at times has had to speak strongly on behalf of the club and members.  He has driven back and forth from Virginia to Hershey for several years and is not paid or reimbursed for any of this.  There is a reason the 21 member AACA National Board elected Tom for a second term as national president!  Long term members know this is unusual. It happened as the board felt his leadership was essential if we were going to go into a merger and/or building campaign.

 

I am paid, this is my job so any bricks thrown my way comes with the territory.  Tom does not deserve the innuendo or criticism.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mike6024 said:

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2016/12/15/aaca-withdraws-financial-support-from-aaca-museum-after-merger-negotiations-fall-through/

http://news.classiccars.com/aaca-museum-comments-merger-situation/

 

These two links help explain that situation. From the Hemmings piece, the museum when first formed needed nonprofit status which the club did not have at the time - 

 

As both club and museum officials acknowledged, not too many people – including members of the AACA – realized that the club and museum operated as separate entities. That situation arose at the time of the founding of the museum in 2003 due to the fact that the AACA was not then operating as a 501(c)3 non-profit. Only by establishing the museum as a non-profit could it accept monetary and vehicular donations.

Seems analogous to someone buying a pre-1973 car without a transferrable title that needs a restoration.  In NY for example, you can buy a car without a transferrable registration using form MV51. DMV sometimes takes 3-6 months to confirm the car has not been stolen/registered elsewhere, before they will issue the buyer a transferable reg.  I have done this many times along with many friends.  However, you should never start the restoration on any vehicle until you have a clean title in your possession.  Unfortunately it looks like the museum was started vs waiting for the appropriate 501 tax status.  In hindsight of course, now that would have been better, but now we must move on. 

 

Going back to analogy...now you already put 20K into the restoration of the car you bought and DMV rejected the title 4 months after purchase, as someone else registered the car 2 years ago, and now has died.  You now ask for the money back from the seller, but they will only give you the $2K you paid for the car.  You tell them you already soda blasted, did body work, primed the car, and even bought the new blue paint as it is ready for the new paint job.  Seller says they will give you $4K.  You say no way, and go to small claims.  The judge says you have no valid title/reg to the car, and orders the car be returned to seller, and the seller gives you a 2K refund....what you paid for the car.  Your out almost 18k!  You had no authorization to start restoring a car that was not yours. 

 

To add insult to injury, the seller finds a clean reg from their deceased uncle, fills out the appropriate forms with the Uncles Will, as they are the nephew, and registers the vehicle with a clean reg.  They then spend 5K finishing the restore and sell the car at Mecum for 50k!

 

Not sure on a resolution for this, as I read all the details too.  Cut our losses and buy new property (start a new museum?) as a few others have posted vs building on the current museum property.  I do not see a scenario where they give us everything back (i.e. the entire 20K+ or so we put into the car as analogy, along with a transferrable title).  Although morally that may be the right thing to do (analogy: found the title...seller fill out forms, goes to DMV and sign xferable reg over to you)

 

Concurrently try to mend the relationship. 

 

Chuck

Edited by ChazA (see edit history)
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R W Burgess said:

Does the AACA also have 501 (c) 3 nonprofit status now? Donations to the club tax deductible?

 

Yes Sir! Any donations are appreciated!

Yes, I tested this out earlier this week, and my company accepted and matched :)

 

Chuck Swanson

Edited by ChazA (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Doug Novak said:

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.

 

Hmmm......no response, I guess that answers my questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pete Phillips said:

I'm glad that the Museum Board has put forth their viewpoint: https://news.classiccars.com/aaca-museum-comments-merger-situation/

I urge everyone interested to read it, before passing judgement on this issue. Until now, I've only read or received the AACA Board's point of view. This puts it in a little bit different light.

Pete Phillips

AACA Member

Leonard, Texas

Pete,

You need to read post #224 on page 9, which addresses the points made in this press release.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

 

This discussion has been all over the place. There have been lots of responses, lots of disjointed unrelated points and counterpoints, some general confusion, and a few other tangents. Let me try to restate where we are after a few days and a couple of hundred or so posts...

 

The essential points are still the same. The club and the museum have always been separate organizations. This is not that unusual. Some people were unaware that the museum was not actually part of the club. An effort to merge the two was undertaken. The merger attempt failed. The need to replace or expand the existing club headquarters/library building caused the club's board of directors to decide that the club no longer had much more time to attempt a merger with the Museum and a decision needed to be. The club's board of directors and the museum's board of director's were unable to reach an agreement for a merger. The club's board of directors decided to give up on the merger attempt and dedicate the funding previously given to the museum to the club's building needs.

 

I think that most people are disappointed that an agreement could not be reached but life goes on. The club will continue to operate the club. The museum will continue but without the financial support of the club. Maybe sometime in the future the boards may make another attempt to merge, maybe not. Maybe the two will eventually get back to a better working relationship, similar to the one that has existed in the past. Eventually all of the facts will be out for all to read and decide how it all reached this point. Hopefully everybody will eventually reach the point that they realize that we all need to be able to agree, or agree to disagree without being disagreeable, and all resume working for the best interest of the hobby, like we all did before this issue surfaced.     

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Doug Novak said:

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.

Hmmm......no response, I guess that answers my questions.

 

Of course other property has been searched and prepared for, as a last resort. We can not wait forever to begin a building project to house donations that are waiting for our Library. Sorry I did not get back earlier to you.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sA lot of reading, a lot of upset.  Now that the museum, has had its say, now the club will answer back.   Then the museum will answer back.  The problem, as I  said in posting #99 is that we, the members were all in the dark about what was going on.  I find interesting that after days of posting on this forum, the  AACA National Board finally  did a posting and under its name it says  "newbie".  This is the first time that the Board has posted on this forum and look what it took to get them to do this.  Nobody is questioning the work the Board does.  Why is the work the Board does so secret?

Are they going to be secret about where the new  library and HQ are going to be built and funded?  All these posts show members, who are interested in what is going on.  The idea that we should sat back and accept it.  Because the "Board" knows best.  Is not going to work. 

To me this dialog  is heathy, it shows a interest and passion that this club needs.  I did not become a lifetime member to be led blindly!

It is sad, that it took this issue to get the board to open up in a way, it has never opened up before.

I do not think that we will get all the answers, to end this to everyone's satisfaction.   To me this is a healthy and good dialog. 

I just hope the Board will talk about this at the Philly meeting.  I just have to say having the round table meeting with all the Board members after the  general membership meeting, is a bad time. People are leaving and there is a lot of noise, so it is not easy asking questions.  At he 2016 annual meeting in Philly.  They blocked out a entire seminar spot (meaning this was the only seminar going on)and had a seminar about that TV show that we have heard nothing about since.  Why can't they do the same and have a seminar with ALL the members of the Board  to talk about this issue.  The problem at  Philadelphia is that the Board is so busy with meeting and going to seminars, that you are luck if they have time to talk to you.   

Edited by 32tatra (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most, if not all members, view this as a sad development.  My wife Marion and I always viewed the AACA Museum as part of the AACA (it has our club's name on it), and I don't think we're alone in that.  We understand the history now of how the museum was established, why it was set up as a separate entity, and after reading 272 posts now understand most--but not all--of how we go to where we're at today.  However, as the AACA BOD posts more information to the forum and provides more info in the next issue of the Antique Automobile, we'll all understand even more of the background and details.

 

We are confident in the dedication and efforts of our club's elected directors and its Executive Director, and that they are acting in the best interests of our club and hobby.  We understand that people are surprised by and upset with the situation, and understand why, but the board and in particular the specific members mentioned don't deserve the personal attacks. 

 

We appreciate the thoughtful responses and healthy exchange of ideas that have been shared with us, especially the Board's detailed response to the points made in the Museum's letter.  We look forward to reading the other information the Board has promised to post.  (We need to be patient and realize that this issue blowing up publicly caused incomplete information to be shared and that the Board is working to get the rest of the details out to us.  It takes time to post detailed, thought out and complete responses.  Technical issues don't help.  They also can't possibly post all the details of the negotiations, options they've researched for alternate locations/facilities temporary or permanent.)

 

With a lot of effort and a little luck negotiations will resume again and a compromise can be reached that is acceptable and beneficial to both organizations.  We're confident the current Board and the new directors joining it in 2017 will make the effort to resolve this situation and represent the club's and its members' best interests. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few decades ago when preparing for a debate I was forced to study the issue thoroughly because one never knew which side of the debate they were to defend. We studied the facts of the issue, not the "spin", and that is what is missing here.

 

When the club resolves their technical issues and publishes the documents we will be able to see the "facts". All of the rhetoric in the world doesn't help. Did you ever witness an event and then read about it in the paper? With all of this he said/she said to date all we have here to base an opinion on is a set of partial documents furnished by the museum and commentary by both boards explaining what they mean from their perspective. 

 

It reminds me of the old game in the business world where a verbal conversation is followed up by a letter that deliberately misstates the facts. Regardless of the conversation the letter is all that is admissible before a court or arbiter. 

 

Hopefully the technical issues will be resolved shortly so that we may look at the "facts". Until that time we have nothing concrete to base our opinion on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I get that there are two sides to every story, the club board has our best interests at heart, and that negotiations were completely stalled and time has run out for the club to make a decision on moving forward with its building expansion plans.

 

So my question is, what is the rationale of the club board deciding to "cut all ties" with the museum? Even if the club decided to stop the $80,000 payment I could sort of understand, but deciding to stop joint fund raising and joint programs that would benefit both and promote both seems like a win win to me.

It looks like the names of the club and museum are not going to change and each has assets that complement one another so why the total break (unless the club is considering building another museum).

Share this post


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